Title
People vs. Ama y Perez
Case
G.R. No. L-14783
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1961
Three inmates, already serving sentences, stabbed a fellow prisoner to death in Bilibid Prison. One pleaded guilty, leading to a death sentence upheld by the Supreme Court due to quasi-recidivism.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137296)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

On October 16, 1958, Marcial Ama y Perez was charged, along with Ernesto de Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, with the murder of Almario Bautista in the New Bilibid Prison. The information alleged that, on August 27, 1958, the accused, armed with weapons and acting in concert, attacked Bautista with treachery and evident premeditation. The charge emphasized the defendants' status as quasi-recidivists due to prior convictions and the seriousness of the crime committed in the presence of public authorities.

Change of Plea and Trial Court's Actions

Upon arraignment, the defendants initially pleaded not guilty. However, on November 25, 1958, Marcial Ama y Perez sought to change his plea to guilty. The trial court granted this request after ensuring Ama y Perez understood the charges through a thorough reading and explanation of the information. The court then permitted a hearing on the case where prosecution introduced evidence regarding aggravating circumstances under the information. Ama y Perez, ultimately pleading guilty, was sentenced to death and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.

Assignment of Errors and Legal Arguments

On appeal, the defense argued that the trial court erred in allowing the change of plea without fully informing Ama y Perez that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death penalty in light of the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The defense contended that had Ama y Perez been aware of this, he would have opted to go to trial instead. They also claimed the appointed counsel's oversight constituted ineffective assistance as it did not adequately address the implications of the plea.

Court's Ruling on Appeal

The appellate court found no merit in the appeal. It stated that the primary obligation of the court was to inform Ama y Perez of the nature of the charge, which it fulfilled. The court determined that Ama y Perez, assisted by counsel, must have comprehended the gravity of his plea. The legal principle established in prior rulings was reiterated, clarifying that a plea of guilty serves as an admission of all material facts and sufficient to sustain a conviction without the necessity of add

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.