This case  has been elevated  to this  Court as prescribed by the Rules so that we may review the sentence of death passed upon the accused Nicanor Acosta y Pala  by the Court of First Instance  of Manila.

It appears that the said accused was, together with four others,  charged in  the  court  below  with the  crime of robbery  with  homicide,  committed, according to  the information,  as  follows:

"That on or about the  21st day of, October, 1953, in the City  of Manila, Philippines, the  said accused, conspiring and  confederating together and helping- one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with ah."use of superior strength,  the use  of' motor  vehicle, and by means of violence against or intimidation  of persons, to wit: by treacherously shooting one Olimpia Francisco  de Guzman Santos six times with a firearm, take steal and carry  away, with intent of gain and against the consent  of the owner thereof, a handbag containing the sum of P10,000 in cash belonging to the said Olimpia Francisco  de Guzman  to. her damage and prejudice in the said sum of P10,000, Philippine currency and  thereby inflicting upon her multiple (6)  gunshot wounds lacerating the heart, inferior vena cava, lung and kidney, which injuries were the direct and natural cause of her  death of a few moments thereafter;"

the information further alleging

"That the accused Nicanor Acosta y Pala alias Mata is a habitual delinquent, having been previously convicted by final judgment of competent courts as follows-:

B-58172  Theft ................ 1 mo. & 1 day   2-14-52    4-16-52
B-77275  Estafa ............... 1 mo. & 1 day   6-30-50    7-31-50

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not  guilty.  But when the case came up for trial about a month later,  he withdrew his plea of not guilty and,  upon the information being read to him, entered, that of guilty.  After satisfying itself that  the accused,  who was.  then represented  by counsel,  was  aware of the consequences of his  plea, the court pronounced its  judgment,  declaring him guilty  as charged  and, in view of the aggravating  circumstances alleged in the information with only the plea of guilty to mitigate the  offense,  sentencing him to death.

The attorney de oficio recommends that.the sentence be set aside and the case remanded to  the court below for a new trial, contending that it "Was error to  "mete out so grave a  penalty, on a mere  plea of guilty,  without first fully explaining to  the accused the  consequences of such plea in view  of the aggravating  circumstances alleged in the  information.

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 eases, especially where grave crimes are charged, to take additional evidence  as to the guilt of the accused and the circumstances attendant upon tho 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. Sta. Rosa, 88  Phil., 487; People vs. Sabilul, 89 Phil., 283.)

In the present case, the-decision below states:

"Asked by the Court whether he is fully aware of the consequences of his voluntary plea of guilty in view of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information namely, abuse of superior strength, us of motor vehicle,  treachery, and  habitual delinquency, the accused maintained his  plea of guilty.

It  thus appears  that, before  passing  sentence, the court fust satisfied itself  that the  accused "was well aware  of the consequences of his plea of guilty,  the full import of which, in view of the aggravating  circumstances alleged, must have been brought home to him by his  lawyer,'who M.as  then with,  him and must be supposed to  have duly performed  his  duty  as such.  Undoubtedly  aware that there were no. mitigating circumstances for  he made no offer  to prove any counsel must have figured  that  defendant's only  chance to  obtain leniency was for him to atenuate  his liability with  a frank admission  of guilt and throw himself upon the mercy  of the. court.   In the circumstances, the  trial court was not bound to take  evidence since the plea  of guilty, which was  advisedly  entered, already supplied the necessary proof.

In the case of People vs. Palupe, 69 Phil., 703, this Court, in  affirming a conviction for  murder  on a plea of  guilty, said

"Cuando el Juzgado  no requirio la presentacion de pruebas  adicionales, fue indudablemente porque no hubo el menor  asomo de duda de que el acusado, o sea el apelante,  conocia  los verdaderos hechos y la naturaleza de su delito, siendo por dicha raaon innecesario dieho tramite;  y nadie mejor que le Juzgado podia determinar si habia tal necesidad o no porque tenia ante si al apelante que  por cierto  no estaba solo, sino  acompanado y asistido dohidamente de su albogsido defensor a quien. fse supone naturahnente que le asesoro con abaoluta fidelidad y aprobo el paso que iba a day eonfesan dose culpably porque era  lo megor que podia hacer para merecer la menor pena posible.  Ademas, el apelante no pidio en ning momento antes de  perfeccionailf si apslacion, que  se permitiese presentar  pruebas  para  estafolecer alguna defensa, no obstante haber  hecho bu confesion Bin resetvas  de ningun  genero."

The above pronouncement fits in to the case now before us. And it  clearly appearing that the trial court accepted the plea of guilty only after satisfying itself that the accused was aware of its consequences in  view of the aggravating circumstances alleged, we find no need for. ordering a new trial,  especially because no  offer has been  made  to  prove any defense  or  any  circumstance that might mitigate criminal  liability.

The sentence imposed below being  in accordance  with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

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