The defendants are  accused of the crime of murder, the information alleging "that on or about June 17,  1924, in the municipality of Lumbang, Province of Laguna, Philippine Islands, the  accused, being father  and son, voluntarily, illegally and criminally, with premeditation and treachery, conspiring together and aiding each other and  with deliberate intention  to kill, attacked and  assaulted Perfecto Abiog with bolos which they were carrying  and with the aid and cooperation of  four dogs belonging to them, inflicting on said Perfecto Abiog various wounds, necessarily mortal,  in the head and on different part's of the body, which wounds  were the direct  and only cause of the immediate death  of said Perfecto Abiog."  The court below found them guilty of homicide and sentenced each of them to suffer  fourteen years, eight months and one day  of reclusion  temporal, with the  accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs  of the deceased Perfecto Abiog in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.  From this sentence both of the defendants appealed to this  court.

Though the defendants assert that the fatal wounds were inflicted by Alfredo Somonte only, there can  be no doubt whatever that both of them participated in the commission of the crime and the only question for  determination is whether the killing of the deceased was justified  on the ground of self  defense.

The crime was committed in the evening  of June 17, 1924.  Earlier  in the day the deceased and the defendants were aiding some of  their neighbors in planting rice in adjoining fields.  While they were resting after the noon meal, the defendant Bruno Somonte accused Perfecto Abiog, the deceased, of having allowed his carabaos to destroy his,  Bruno's, cornfield.  Abiog answered that that could hardly be possible because Bruno's dogs had driven the carabaos away before any damage  had  been  done to the cornfield.  After some further rather acrimonious remarks Bruno drew his bolo and attacked Abiog with it, but only succeeded in striking Abiog's hat (salacot) which fell to the ground.  Through the intervention of the other persons present, Bruno and Abiog were separated from each other.  There is some testimony  to the effect that upon being so separated, Bruno said to Abiog: "You will have supper in heaven tonight" and that he  said  to his son, the other defendant Alfredo Somonte, who was then present: "If you cannot fight Perfecto Abiog, I will kill you."

About 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day Abiog, after caring for his carabaos and picketing them on his land a short distance from the house of the accused, went over to the house of one Teodora Mercado in the same vicinity. Upon arriving there he seated himself on a bamboo  bench or lancape  under the house and asked Teodora for some buyo  which  he  proceeded  to chew.   According to the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, while Abiog was sitting on the bench, the two accused armed with bolos came to the house.  Bruno approached Abiog and began to renew the quarrel had earlier in the day.  During the ensuing  discussion, he saw his  chance to  grasp the  handle of Abiog's bolo, a fighting bolo about 15 inches long, and drawing it from  its scabbard  dealt Abiog a blow with it on the  left  cheek.   Abiog succeeded  in picking up  a dull working bolo belonging to Teodora Mercado with which he  defended himself, but being attacked from behind by Alfredo Somonte  and  molested by  the  defendants' dogs, he  finally fell to the ground.   While he  was lying  on  the ground, Alfredo continued to inflict wounds upon him and he  died almost  instantly.  The body of the deceased  exhibited fourteen wounds and ten dog bites.  Seven of the bolo wounds were in the back of  the head, each of them necessarily fatal.

The defendants' story is to the effect that Abiog harbored resentment against them because they had set their dogs on  his carabaos as a result of which the carabaos were badly wounded, and that Abiog was the aggressor on both of the occasions referred to in the evidence for the prosecution.  As to what happened at the house of Teodora Mercado,  they  testify that  while  looking  for two  of  his dogs, Bruno came to Teodora's  house and found  Abiog there; that not finding the dogs Bruno was about to leave the house when  Abiog arose and placing his hands  on  the handle of his bolo, said: "It is a happy coincidence that  I have seen you again;" that Abiog thereupon drew the bolo and attacked Bruno who defended himself with  his own bolo; that  by reason  of the lack of headroom under the house and the consequent difficulty of swinging their bolos, neither of the two were wounded during the struggle which took place there;  that  Bruno stumbling  over a pile of wood, fell outside  of the house where the fight continued and  that Abiog  there succeeded in inflicting two wounds on  him, one on  the right shoulder and the other on the left side of the  face; that from the effect  of these wounds Bruno  began to stagger  and dropped  his  bolo  without having been able to wound  Abiog; that at  that  moment Alfredo arrived and seeing his father in danger of being killed drew his bolo and attacked Abiog; and that during the ensuing struggle between them Alfredo succeeded in disarming Abiog by applying a jiu jitsu trick which Abiog himself had taught him; that  Abiog then reached for Bruno's bolo and knowing that Abiog was an  expert fencer and that he might  be victorious if the struggle continued, Alfredo gave him a bolo cut in the back of  the head and Abiog fell to  the ground where Alfredo inflicted several more wounds upon him so as to be sure of incapacitating him for further aggression.  Alfredo  also states that in disarming Abiog it was necessary  for him  to grasp the blade of the latter's bolo and that in doing so, three of the fingers  of his left hand were wounded.  The  wounds  were not serious and, according to the certificate of the physician who examined  them, would  require only twelve days for their  healing.

For various reasons  we cannot accept the defendants' version of the occurrence.   It is in conflict with their statements made to the justice of the peace and the chief of police immediately  after the  commission of the crime and is otherwise somewhat improbable. It  is shown by the defendants' own uncontradicted testimony that the deceased was an expert bolo fencer and  had been giving lessons in the  art to a class  of which  Alfredo  Somonte was  a member for several months.  It is also shown and not contradicted that his bolo was very sharp and being a fighting bolo, it must have had a sharp point.  If so, it seems incredible that Abiog should  have been unable to  wound Bruno during the struggle downstairs in the house if  he had been  armed with his own bolo and had  the intention of  injuring the latter.  The vertical  distance from the ground to the  floor of the upper story was sufficient to enable a man of ordinary height to stand upright.   Under these circumstances an expert fencer could, and undoubtedly would, have used the point of the bolo.  The testimony for the  prosecution  that during the struggle Abiog was armed only  with Teodora Mercado's working bolo, seems much more  probable.

It is also to be noted that the defendants claim that Abiog was using his  own  bolo, which  had a very  sharp edge, and  that he was unwounded at the time  Alfredo  entered into the struggle.   If so, it seems rather  improbable that Alfredo could have  grasped the blade of that bolo and wrested it  from his adversary  without  receiving more serious cuts on  the inside of his hand than those exhibited by him; it is more likely that  the bolo he grasped was a dull  working bolo and that Abiog was in  a wounded condition when the bolo was taken away from him.

The dog bites found on  the  body of the deceased also show that the  defendants  did  not tell the truth  on the witness stand.  Their counsel suggest that the bites might have been inflicted by hungry dogs after the death of Abiog and  while his body was  lying  oh the  ground in  front of Teodora Mercado's house, but if that had been the case the wounds would have had a different appearance and would not have been  found only  on the legs of the body.

Counsel for the defendants call attention to various discrepancies and minor contradictions in the  testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and insist  that for this reason their testimony should be disregarded.  We do not think so.  It is possible that some of the witnesses allowed their imagination too wide a range and made positive statements as  to facts of which they were not certain from their own observation, but after  a careful examination of the record we  are  convinced that they in the main told the truth.   Absolute  accuracy in statement of details can hardly be expected from  comparatively ignorant witnesses.

That  Teodora Mercado at first failed to disclose all the facts to which she afterwards testified does not necessarily render her testimony unworthy of  belief.  The crime was committed at her house; her bolo was used by one of the contending parties and probably had blood on it;  and upon the arrival of the chief of  police at her house for the purpose of investigating the crime, she  was threatened with being handcuffed.  In these circumstances, it is no wonder  if she, as she states,  failed  to  make  a complete statement  of the facts  for fear of becoming involved in the case.

Citing section 343 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, it is also argued by counsel for defense that no sufficient foundation was laid for the admission in evidence of Exhibits J and K and that therefore these documents should not have been taken into consideration  by the court below.  This contention is  not  tenable.  The exhibits  in question are signed statements  made by the defendants to the justice of the peace shortly after the commission of the crime.

The documents were shown  to the defendants and  their authenticity  admitted before  any questions were  asked concerning their contents, and full opportunity was given the defendants to  explain.  That, in our opinion, is a sufficient  compliance  with  the   section   cited where  the statements sought to be introduced  for  the purpose of impeaching the witness are in writing.

The defendants having failed  to  establish their plea of self-defense, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with one-half of the costs of this instance against each of  the appellants.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street. Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.