THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO BMTLADO Y LUMUGDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

It appears from the record that on the
18th day of December, 1920, one of the assistant prosecuting attorneys
of the City of Manila presented a complaint in the Court of First
Instance, charging the defendant with the crime of qualified theft. The
complaint alleged:

“That on or about the 11th day of April,
1920, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, and within the
jurisdiction of this court, the said accused did voluntarily,
unlawfully, and feloniously and with intent of gain and without the
consent of its owner, take, abstract and carry away the sum of $120
consisting of six twenty (20) dollar bank notes belonging to Lieutenant
W. S. Murray, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the amount
of P240 Philippine pesos, equivalent to 1,200 pesetas.

“That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of the
same having been perpetrated in the dwelling of the offended party and
in the nighttime, and the further circumstance that the herein accused
had been previously convicted four times by this same court of the
crime of theft. Contrary to law.”

Upon said
complaint the defendant was duly arrested, arraigned, and plead “not
guilty.” Later, when the cause was called for trial the defendant
withdrew his plea of “not guilty” and substituted therefor the plea of
“guilty;” whereupon the Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, in
consideration of the plea of guilty on the part of the defendant and
after consideration of the facts set out in the complaint, sentenced
him to be imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven months, and
eleven days of presidio correccional, with the accessory
penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended person in the sum of
$60, and in case of insolvency to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in
accordance with the provisions of the law, and to pay the costs. From
that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.

The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in
sentencing him to be imprisoned for a period of two years, eleven
months, and eleven days, for the reason that the lower court was
without authority to consider the aggravating circumstance of former
convictions four different times for the crime of theft.

An examination of the complaint above shows that it alleges that
the defendant had been convicted for the crime of theft four times
before the commencement of the present action. To that complaint, the
defendant plead guilty. His plea of guilty not only admitted that he
had committed the theft described in the body of the complaint, but
also admitted the fact that he had been convicted four different times
for the crime of theft theretofore in the same court in which the
present complaint was presented.

An appeal from a judgment of conviction, which is based upon a plea
of guilty, raises no question of fact, and this court will look to the
record only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the penalty imposed
is in accordance with the law based upon the facts alleged in the
complaint. (U. S. vs. Tamarra, 21 Phil., 143; U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U. S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305.)

A plea of guilty is an admission of all the material facts alleged
in the information. When the information charges not only the crime but
also that the defendant had been convicted theretofore, a plea of
guilty to the charge admits not only the facts constituting the crime
with which he is charged in the present case but also the fact that he
had been convicted theretofore in the manner charged in the complaint.
(U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U. S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil., 573.)

The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the
accused 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 or crimes charged in
the complaint or information. A plea of guilty, when formally entered
on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense
charged in the information without the introduction of further
evidence, the defendant himself having supplied the necessary proof by
his plea of guilty. (U. S. vs. Dineros, 18 Phil., 566; U. S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305.)

The defendant having admitted his guilt of the facts charged in the
complaint, the only .question left for decision is the penalty. The
record shows that the amount of money stolen was $120 (P240) and that
$60 only was recovered. Considering the amount of the theft, the
appellant must be sentenced in accordance with paragraph 3 of article
518 in relation with paragraph 3 of article 520 of the Penal Code, or
with the immediate superior grade to that fixed in paragraph 3 of
article 518 in its maximum degree, which is six years and one day to
eight years of presidio mayor. After a full consideration of
the facts and the plea of guilty of the defendant, we are of the
opinion and so decide that the sentence of the lower court should be
modified and that the appellant should be sentenced to be imprisoned
for a period of six years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of $60 and to pay the costs. So ordered.

Araullo, Street, Avancena, and Villamor, JJ., concur.