In the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 2903, Alejandro Santos and Jose Vicente were charged and convicted of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 in connection with Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, in an information couched in the following language:

"The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Alejandro Santos and Jose Vicente of the crime of murder, penalized under the provisions of Art. 248 in connection with Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about the 5th day of February, 1957, in the Municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Alejandro Santos and Jose Vicente, being national prisoners by virtue of final judgments of competent courts in the following cases to wit:

1.	Criminal case No. 45618 for theft before the court of first instance of Manila. Sentence-One (1) month and one day, additional penalty for being habitual delinquent, 2 yrs. 4 months and 1 day to 6 years.	1.	Criminal case. No. 30476 for robbery before the court of first instance of Manila. Sentence-4 years to 8 yrs. and 1 day. Commencing March 7, 1955.
2.	Criminal case No. 45619 for theft before the court of first instance of Manila. Additional penalty for habitual delinquent-2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, commencing July 7, 1955	3. 3.	Criminal case No. 20018 for robbery before the court of first instance of Manila. Sentence-2 years 10 months and 22 days to 6 years one month and one day, commencing February 17, 1955. Criminal case No. 31616 for slight physical injuries before the Municipal Court of Manila. Sentence-five (5) days imprisonment. Commencing February 21, 1955.
3.	Criminal Case No. 33340 for robbery before the court of first instance of Manila. Sentence one year, 8 months and 20 days to 6 years and 1 day. Commencing-January 19, 1956.	4.	Criminal Case No. 30473 for murder before the court of first instance of Manila. Sentence-Reclusion Perpetua, commencing May 12, 1956.

serving their sentences and detained  in the  Provincial  Jail of Bulacan awaiting trial of Criminal Case No. 2839,  People vs. Jose Vicente, et al for robbery,  and armed with wooden clubs, sharpened meat can handle,  nine (9) inches long, and sharpened ice-pick, 10 inches  long, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, with intent  to kill one Ernesto Palangue, a Prisoner Trustee in the said Provincial Jail, did then and there wilfully,  unlawfully  and feloniously, with evident premeditation and treachery,  at- tack,  assault, strike and hit with the weapons the accused were then provided the said Ernesto palangue on different parts of his body, causing bodily injuries,  to wit:

1. Wound,  stabbed, 1-1/2" deep, downward and to the left, inflammatory, left:
2. Stab wound, 2" deep downwards and to the left, aparasternal,  xyphoid region, left.
3. Stab wound, 3-1/4" deep, downwards and to right.
4. Stab wound, 10" deep, anterior axillary line, 1" nipple right.
5. Wound punctured, 1" deep, downwards and to the left, chest,  right, around 10" below nipple 1/4", around 7" below, nipple, left.
6. Stab wound, 6" deep, downwards  and to the.left, epigastric, right; 4" downwards and to the left,  hypochondriac,  left; 10", 2 in number,  medialwards and upwards, epigastric, 1" above navel,  right; 10",  medialwards, hypochondriac, right;  2 in number,  medialwards   and  upwards, 1/2  feet  to  right  of umbilicus.
7. Punctured wound, 1" deep, medialwards, hypocondriac, right;  medialwards,  iliac  right 2" directed upwards ,  tigh  lateral aspect, left.
8. Hernia, scrotal, left.
9. Abrasion, forearm,  distal 3rd, right, hand, dorsum, right.
10.  Fracture, simple,  ulna, distal 3rd,  left.
11. Abrasion, forearm,  left.
12. Stab wound,  thru & thru, 2  in number, forearm, lateral, aspect, left,  to arm medial aspect distal end.
13. Contusion with hematona, frontal, left.
14. Wound,  lacerated,  1-1/2" Supracillary, left.
15. Wound,  lacerated,  2-1/2" Supracillary, right, with  comminuted fracture of supracillary, bones.
16. Fracture, compound, complete, frontal, right.
17. Mound,  lacerated,  1-1/2", parietal, right. which caused  the death of the said Ernesto Palangue.
    

That in the  commission  of this crime  the following  aggravating circumstances were present, to wit: (1)  recidivism with respect  to  Jose Vicente only, (2) that the accused has  been previously  punished for two or more crimes to which  it  attaches a lighter penalty, (3)  evident premeditation,  (4) with  cruelty, the  wrong done in the commission  of the crime having been deliberately  augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for  its commission, and (5) quasi-recidivism,  the said  accused having committed this  crime after having  been  convicted by final judgments  of competent courts and while  serving said judgments.

Contrary  to  law.

Malolos,  Bulacan,  March 28,  1957."

To this information,  both defendants  pleaded guilty, whereupon, the lower court rendered  judgment  sentencing  them  to suffer the penalty of death; to indemnify  the  heirs  of  the deceased Ernesto Palangue in the sum  of P6,000.00,  to  suffer  all the accessory penalties provided for by law  and  to pay the  costs.

The death penalty having been  imposed,  records  of the case were forwarded to this Court  for review,  pursuant  to the provisions of Section  9,  Rule  118  of the Rules of  Court. The conviction must stand.  The  records  disclose that at the arraignment, the  accused  were  assisted by a counsel de  oficio appointed by the presiding Judge.  Counsel was given time to confer and did confer with the defendants before entering their plea of guilty.  There appears to be no doubt that: their plea were given voluntarily and spontaneously.  Under these facts, no irregularity was committed by the lower court.

New counsel de oficio in this review, however, contends that it was error for the lower court to consider against the accused the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances stated in the information, there having been no hearing ordered by the said court to at least investigate the facts that were alleged as giving rise to those circumstances.

In several cases, this Court had occasion to rule that a plea of guilty removes all the necessity of presenting evidence of the crime charged and is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even a capital, offense, without any further evidence (People vs. Acosta, 52 Off. Gaz. 1930; People vs. Rapirap, G. R. No. L-110001, January 21, 1958), the requisite proofs having been supplied by the accused himself. By the plea of guilty, all the facts alleged in the information are deemed admitted (People vs. Lambino, G. R. Ho. L-10875, April 28, 1958).  The taking of further evidence, including the ascertainment of circumstances which affect criminal  liability, rests entirely upon the sound discretion of the court  (People vs. Trimpo, G. R. No. L-8585, October 23, 1956, 52 Off. Gaz.  No.15, 6514; People vs. Acosta, supra) .  Thus, in the Acosta case, this Court said:

This Court  has already declared that the essence of the plea of guilty  in a criminal trial is that the accused, on arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily and with full knowledge of the  consequences  and meaning of his act,  and with a clear understanding  of the  precise nature of the crime charged in the  information;  that when formally  entered, such a plea  is  sufficient to  sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the information, even a capital offense,  without the  introduction of further evidence, the defendant having himself supplied the necessary proof;  and that while it  may be  prudent and advisable in some cases, especially where  grave crimes are charged, to take additional evidence as to  the guilt of the accused and the circumstances attendant  upon the commission of the crime, nevertheless it lies  in the sound discretion of the court  whether to  take  evidence or not in any case where it is  satisfied that the plea of guilty has been  entered by the  accused with full  knowledge of the meaning and consequences of his act. (U. S. vs.  Jamad, 37 Phil.  305; U. S. vs.  Burlado,  42 Phil.  72;  People vs. Santa Rosa, G. R. No.  L-3487,  April 18,  1951;  People vs. Sabilul,  G. R. No. L-3765,  June 21,  1951). (52 Off. Gaz. No. 4, p. 1932)

The aggravating circumstances  in  this case mostly appear from official  records, and it must  have  been  for this reason that counsel de oficio in the court below did not ask the court for inquiry into the circumstances  of  the crime, but assented-into their entering a. plea of guilty  notwithstanding the serious consequences that said plea entailed.   Moreover, no attempt was made, after the passing of the death sentence, to ask the court to  reopen the hearing for reception of evidence in defense or mitigation of liability, evidently because no  such evidence existed. It is well to note that even discarding the circumstances of premeditation and cruelty, sufficient aggravating circumstances remain, not only to offset the plea of guilty but to raise the penalty to the maximum provided by law,  specially in view of Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code.

He find no error in the judgment appealed from and, much to our regret, find no alternative but to affirm the judgment and  sentence now under review.

So Ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.