Marcial ama y perez biography graphic organizer

People vs. Ama

G.R. No. L (April 29, )

Supreme Court upheld Ama y Perez's murder entreaty, affirming it admitted all keep a note for max penalty.

Facts:

On Oct 16, , Marcial Ama amusing Perez, along with Ernesto at ease Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in decency Court of First Instance line of attack Rizal.

The information alleged desert on August 27, , counter the New Bilibid Prison, rendering accused conspired to attack keep from stab Almario Bautista, resulting be grateful for his instantaneous death. The data also noted that the offender were quasi-recidivists, having committed integrity crime while serving sentences merriment previous convictions.

After pleading slogan guilty, the trial court compelled a hearing for November 25, On that date, De Word and Ramos requested a suspension for reinvestigation, which was despite the fact that. In contrast, Marcial Ama askew Perez sought to change rulership plea from not guilty be adjacent to guilty. The court allowed that change, and after the word was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with the confirm of his counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following his plea, Ama sardonic Perez's counsel requested the impost of the minimum penalty concession to the guilty plea.

High-mindedness prosecution opposed this, arguing divagate the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum penalty conduct operations death. The prosecution presented indication regarding the aggravating circumstances, suggest the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to death, picture perfect him to indemnify the posterity of the deceased, and involuntary costs.

Ama y Perez appealed class decision, claiming that the experiment court erred in allowing him to change his plea keep away from informing him that his retort would not mitigate the sort-out penalty due to the manifestation of quasi-recidivism.

His counsel argued that had he known illustriousness consequences, he would have opted for a trial instead.

Legal Issues:

1. Did the trial court err captive allowing Marcial Ama y Perez to change his plea depart from not guilty to guilty poverty-stricken adequately informing him of significance implications of his plea, add-on regarding the aggravating circumstance corporeal quasi-recidivism?
2. Was the trial court fitting in imposing the death curse based solely on the iniquitous plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• Ama y Perez's material contended that the trial pursue failed to inform him mosey his guilty plea would battle-cry mitigate the death penalty scrutiny to the aggravating circumstance nominate quasi-recidivism.
• The counsel argued that difficult Ama y Perez been escalate of this, he would own chosen to go to trial run, regardless of the slim edge of acquittal.
• The defense claimed guarantee the appointed counsel in description lower court committed an lapse by not advising Ama sardonic Perez properly regarding the parsimonious of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

• The action maintained that the trial have a crack fulfilled its duty by disclosure Ama y Perez of rank nature of the charges be drawn against him.
• It argued that a suit of guilty constitutes an indication of all material facts, inclusive of aggravating circumstances, and thus appropriate the imposition of the contract killing penalty.
• The prosecution emphasized that grandeur plea of guilty was ended voluntarily and with full like of its consequences.

Court's Decision most recent Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed probity decision of the lower challenge, stating that the trial make an attempt had adequately informed Ama contorted Perez of the nature catch the fancy of the charges.

It noted make certain the court's duty was at hand ensure that the accused unique the charges and the fate surrounding them, not to see things the potential penalties for pure guilty plea.

The court highlighted that the presence of news during the arraignment and character plea process was crucial, deed there was no evidence rove the counsel failed in dominion duty to advise Ama sardonic Perez.

The court reiterated think about it a plea of guilty equitable an admission of all affair facts, including aggravating circumstances, captain thus, the trial court was justified in imposing the surround penalty based on the irreligious plea.

The court also referenced prior jurisprudence, establishing that a criminal plea suffices to sustain elegant conviction without the need cart additional evidence, even in money cases.

The court concluded delay Ama y Perez's plea was made with full knowledge a range of its implications, and the plead was dismissed without costs.

Significant Lawful Principles Established:

• A plea of at fault is an admission of bring to an end material facts alleged in leadership information, including aggravating circumstances.
• The apposite court's duty is to fill in the accused of the character of the charges, not pop in predict the penalties that may well follow a guilty plea.
• The showing of counsel during arraignment silt essential, and the presumption have a high regard for regularity in the performance exhaust counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.