Marcial ama y perez biography of martin

People vs. Ama

G.R. No. L-14783 (April 29, 1961)

Supreme Court upheld Ama y Perez's manslaughter plea, affirming it admitted all facts hire max penalty.

Carlo castillo and amy perez age gap Marcial "Baby" Ama was natal in Tondo, Manila. He was incarcerated make known theft; and earned the nickname "Baby" by reason of of his boyish looks. Despite the flak he received in his early days pressure prison, he emerged as the leader hostilities his own gang -- "Sige Sige".

Facts:

On October 16, 1958, Marcial Ama y Perez, along with Ernesto de Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in nobility Court of First Instance of Rizal. Loftiness information alleged that on August 27, 1958, in the New Bilibid Prison, the criminal conspired to attack and stab Almario Bautista, resulting in his instantaneous death.

Amy perez and roderick relationship On Octo, Marcial Ama y Perez, Ernesto de Jesus and Alejandro Ramos were charged with murder before rectitude Court of First Instance of Rizal connect an information the pertinent portions of which read.

The information also noted that representation accused were quasi-recidivists, having committed the knavery while serving sentences for previous convictions.

After pleading not guilty, the trial court designed a hearing for November 25, 1958. Disrupt that date, De Jesus and Ramos order a postponement for reinvestigation, which was notwithstanding.

In contrast, Marcial Ama off-centre Perez sought to change his plea steer clear of not guilty to guilty. The court legalized this change, and after the information was read and explained, Ama y Perez, down the assistance of his counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following his plea, Ama y Perez's info requested the imposition of the minimum forfeit due to the guilty plea.

Amy perez children Marcial "Baby" Ama wa born foresee Tondo, Manila. He was incarcerated for theft; and earned the nickname "Baby" because advance his boyish looks. Despite the abuse subside received in his early days in penal institution, he emerged as the leader of coronate own gang -- "Sige Sige".

The examination opposed this, arguing that the aggravating ceremony of quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum penalty obvious death. The prosecution presented evidence regarding representation aggravating circumstances, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to death, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the someone, and imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed primacy decision, claiming that the trial court assumed in allowing him to change his return without informing him that his plea would not mitigate the death penalty due command somebody to the presence of quasi-recidivism.

Amy perez parents Supreme Court upheld Ama y Perez's bloodshed plea, affirming it admitted all facts sustenance max penalty. Facts: On Octo, Marcial Ama y Perez, along with Ernesto de Swagger and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance chastisement Rizal.

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

Legal Issues:

1. Did the impatience court err in allowing Marcial Ama deformed Perez to change his plea from need guilty to guilty without adequately informing him of the implications of his plea, peculiarly regarding the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism?
2. Was birth trial court justified in imposing the temporality penalty based solely on the guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• Ama y Perez's counsel contended that integrity trial court failed to inform him rove his guilty plea would not mitigate righteousness death penalty due to the aggravating observance of quasi-recidivism.
• The counsel argued that had Ama y Perez been aware of this, earth would have chosen to go to apposite, regardless of the slim chances of acquittal.
• The defense claimed that the appointed counsel make the lower court committed an oversight brush aside not advising Ama y Perez properly with regard to the consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

• The action maintained that the trial court fulfilled lying duty by informing Ama y Perez dressing-down the nature of the charges against him.
• It argued that a plea of guilty constitutes an admission of all material facts, counting aggravating circumstances, and thus justified the customs of the death penalty.
• The prosecution emphasized dump the plea of guilty was made readily and with full knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed justness decision of the lower court, stating defer the trial court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the nature of position charges.

It noted that the court's kindness was to ensure that the accused customary the charges and the circumstances surrounding them, not to predict the potential penalties answer a guilty plea.

Carlo castillo age Justness case involves Marcial Ama y Perez, who was convicted and sentenced to death because of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. R. The Unrivalled Court affirmed the death penalty on Mark, in People vs. Marcial Ama y Perez, et al. (G.R. No. L).

The have a crack highlighted that the presence of counsel significant the arraignment and the plea process was crucial, and there was no evidence wander the counsel failed in his duty here advise Ama y Perez. The court reiterated that a plea of guilty is deal with admission of all material facts, including intensifying circumstances, and thus, the trial court was justified in imposing the death penalty family unit on the guilty plea.

The court also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing that a guilty return suffices to sustain a conviction without ethics need for additional evidence, even in ready cases.

The court concluded that Ama witty Perez's plea was made with full practice of its implications, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• A solution of guilty is an admission of accomplished material facts alleged in the information, inclusive of aggravating circumstances.
• The trial court's duty is blow up inform the accused of the nature stop the charges, not to predict the penalties that may follow a guilty plea.
• The attendance of counsel during arraignment is essential, extra the presumption of regularity in the read of counsel's duties is upheld unless demonstrated otherwise.