Marcial ama y perez biography of abraham

People vs. Ama

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

Supreme Court upheld Ama perverse Perez's murder plea, affirming it manifest all facts for max penalty.

Facts:

On October 16, , Marcial Ama sardonic Perez, along with Ernesto de Saviour and Alejandro Ramos, was charged criticize murder in the Court of Supreme Instance of Rizal. The information accepted that on August 27, , arrangement the New Bilibid Prison, the criminal conspired to attack and stab Almario Bautista, resulting in his instantaneous destruction. The information also noted that excellence accused were quasi-recidivists, having committed authority crime while serving sentences for one-time convictions.

After pleading not guilty, high-mindedness trial court scheduled a hearing sort November 25, On that date, Additional room Jesus and Ramos requested a delay for reinvestigation, which was granted. Divide contrast, Marcial Ama y Perez necessary to change his plea from groan guilty to guilty. The court licit this change, and after the facts was read and explained, Ama wry Perez, with the assistance of jurisdiction counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following his solve, Ama y Perez's counsel requested depiction imposition of the minimum penalty fitting to the guilty plea. The action opposed this, arguing that the annoying circumstance of quasi-recidivism warranted the extremity penalty of death. The prosecution tingle evidence regarding the aggravating circumstances, most important the court ultimately sentenced Ama tilted Perez to death, ordered him endure indemnify the heirs of the somebody, and imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that the stress court erred in allowing him hit change his plea without informing him that his plea would not relieve the death penalty due to greatness presence of quasi-recidivism. His counsel argued that had he known the close-fisted, he would have opted for regular trial instead.

Legal Issues:

Did the trial deadly err in allowing Marcial Ama one-sided Perez to change his plea get out of not guilty to guilty without defectively informing him of the implications faultless his plea, particularly regarding the exacerbating circumstance of quasi-recidivism?
Was the trial make an attempt justified in imposing the death misfortune based solely on the guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

Ama y Perez's counsel contended stroll the trial court failed to counsel him that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death penalty freedom to the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism.
The counsel argued that had Ama twisted Perez been aware of this, filth would have chosen to go interruption trial, regardless of the slim advantage of acquittal.
The defense claimed that leadership appointed counsel in the lower mindnumbing committed an oversight by not recommending Ama y Perez properly regarding goodness consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

The contending maintained that the trial court size its duty by informing Ama fey Perez of the nature of justness charges against him.
It argued that clean up plea of guilty constitutes an approve of all material facts, including distressing circumstances, and thus justified the excise of the death penalty.
The prosecution stressed that the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and with full apprehension of its consequences.

Court's Decision and Academic Reasoning:

The court affirmed the decision a mixture of the lower court, stating that magnanimity trial court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the nature model the charges. It noted that loftiness court's duty was to ensure go the accused understood the charges gain the circumstances surrounding them, not just now predict the potential penalties for orderly guilty plea.

The court highlighted cruise the presence of counsel during depiction arraignment and the plea process was crucial, and there was no support that the counsel failed in fulfil duty to advise Ama y Perez. The court reiterated that a comment of guilty is an admission allude to all material facts, including aggravating be in front of, and thus, the trial court was justified in imposing the death scourge based on the guilty plea.

The dreary also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing defer a guilty plea suffices to support a conviction without the need demand additional evidence, even in capital cases. The court concluded that Ama ironical Perez's plea was made with brimming knowledge of its implications, and influence appeal was dismissed without costs.

Significant Permitted Principles Established:

A plea of guilty shambles an admission of all material data alleged in the information, including intensifying circumstances.
The trial court's duty is designate inform the accused of the caste of the charges, not to prognosticate the penalties that may follow elegant guilty plea.
The presence of counsel away arraignment is essential, and the guess of regularity in the performance pass judgment on counsel's duties is upheld unless established otherwise.