This  appeal is taken by the defendants Pedro Limbo and Juan Limbo from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, convicting them of the crime of homicide, and sentencing each to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to indemnify the  heirs of Silvestra Vergara in the sum of P1,000, to return to them the amount of P200 and to pay the costs.

While the appeal was pending the defendant and appellant Juan  Limbo died, wherefore the appeal as to him had to be dismissed with one-half of the costs de oficio and the present appeal  is as to Pedro Limbo alone.

As grounds for his appeal, the defendant and appellant Pedro  Limbo assigns the following errors, to wit:

1. The court erred in giving credit to the  testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, Calixto Macaraig, Petra Vergara, and Procesa Comia, which was in a large degree incoherent,  unbelievable,  and contradictory.

2. The court also erred in not holding that the reason why these witnesses testified against the herein defendants was because they were afraid to become involved in a criminal proceeding if  they  did not  accuse other persons as responsible  for the death of Silvestra Vergara;  and, furthermore, on account of the animosity that existed towards the accused.

3. It also erred in holding that the  suppression of the testimony of Pastor Maralit did not in any way  prejudice the prosecution.

4. It also erred in not believing the defense of alibi, considering that such defense is corroborated by the testimony of the witness  for the prosecution, Petra Vergara, and of Lieutenant Diano of the Constabulary, who investigated this case and started these proceedings.

5. Finally, it erred in not giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt and in not absolving him from the complaint.

The prosecution attempted to prove the following facts:

Juan Limbo was the father of Pedro Limbo and grandson of Petra Vergara, aunt of Silvestra Vergara.  The latter was engaged in the sale  of pansit (Chinese maccaroni) in the market of the municipality  of Bolbok, Province of Batangas, and it was her custom to keep her money in a long pouch made of a grayish colored material which she wound around her waist.  A few days before the commission of the crime Juan Limbo invited Silvestra Vergara to pick tomatoes and tobacco on the former's plantation.  In the afternoon of Easter  Sunday, April 12, 1925, after selling pansit in the market, Silvestra Vergara counted her money which amounted to over P200 in cash  and bills, which she placed within the pouch and tied it around her waist.   The  next morning, Monday, April 13, 1925, Silvestra Vergara  took an early breakfast  and later left the house carrying two bamboo baskets, one called bilao and the other tacuyan and went towards the barrio of Mareykit in the municipality of Bolbok, Batangas.  Upon arriving at the house of Petra Vergara in that barrio, about  10 o'clock in the morning, she inquired of her aunt: "Ka  Petra, Ka Petra, has Juan arrived?"  Upon hearing her Petra Vergara answered, "He is already there."  Before the arrival of Silvestra Vergara, Juan Limbo had been at the house and had asked Calixto Macaraig, husband of Petra Vergara, if they needed some water.  As he was informed to the contrary he went to his tomato patch, about 20 meters from the house,  accompanied by his son Pedro Limbo.  Silvestra Vergara, upon being informed that Juan Limbo was there, proceeded where  they  were.  Shortly  after  Calixto  Macaraig  and Petra  Vergara,  who were  in the kitchen of  their home, heard the voice of Silvestra Vergara shouting "Why do you treat me this way?" Calixto Macaraig, weak as he was, on account of dysentery, made an effort and left the house to see  what the trouble was.  Upon reaching the tomato patch of Juan Limbo he saw Pedro Limbo in the act of hitting Silvestra Vergara with a  club and the latter fall dead.   Juan Limbo unsheathed  his  bolo and cut the pouch that served as a belt around the waist  of Silvestra Vergara and took it.  Calixto Macaraig, after witnessing this, asked  Juan Limbo why they had attacked Silvestra Vergara.  In reply the accused  remarked: "If you inform  the authorities, you  old man, we will  kill you" and they ran, Juan Limbo carrying the bilao and Pedro Limbo  the  takuyan.  Calixto  Macaraig then called to his wife saying "Come here because Terang has been killed by Pedro and Juan."

Doctor Leon P. Cusi upon examining the body of Silvestra Vergara on April  15, 1925,  found contuse wounds in the right temporal region, in the right and left parietals, in the right frontal, in the occipital, on the nose, the bone thereof being broken, one equimosis in the left forearm and a wound on the face.  All the contuse wounds were produced by a blunt instrument while the wound on the face was caused by a sharp instrument.  The contusion in the occipital  region caused her death.

The defense tried to prove that the accused Pedro Limbo and  his wife had left their house in the barrio of Mareykit, near the house  of Calixto Macaraig, because his  mother-in-law,  Petra Vergara, suspected that her  husband was maintaining  illicit relations  with the  former's wife, and for this reason used to scold Pedro's  wife;  that on Holy Saturday Pedro Limbo stayed in  the house  of his father in the neighboring barrio  of Kalikante, in the municipality of Bolbok, Batangas; that on Easter Sunday and the following  Monday and Tuesday he was  ill with fever and could not leave the house  although he could walk around it.  In behalf of the prosecution there testified Procesa Comia, daughter-in-law of Silvestra Vergara with whom she was living at the time and in  whose presence she had counted the money in the afternoon of Easter  Sunday, afterwards placing  it in the pouch; the spouses Calixto Macaraig and Petra Vergara who  saw  Silvestra Vergara, Juan Limbo, and  Pedro Limbo  on the  morning of the crime when the accused fatally wounded Silvestra Vergara, relieving her of the money she carried, by cutting the pouch in which it was kept.

For the defense of the  accused  Pedro Limbo there testified his uncle Gervasio Laraya and his father-in-law, Gregorio Magpantay, who affirmed that Pedro Limbo was  ill with fever and had to go to the house of his mother where he remained on Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday, and the following Monday  and  Tuesday, being unable to leave.

It  is maintained by the appellant that the testimony  of the  witnesses for the prosecution, Calixto Macaraig and Petra Vergara is not worthy of any credit as they contradicted their own  and  each other's testimony.  Furthermore, they were afraid to be involved in this proceeding, and that Petra Vergara had a grudge against the wife of the appellant.

The contradictions and discrepancies observed in the testimony  of  Calixto  Macaraig  and  Petra Vergara given during the trial and in their sworn statements, are due, on one hand,  to  their relationship to the  culprits  and their victim and, on the other hand, to the natural psychological effect of a long and tedious cross-examination, the majority of which consisted of leading questions.

The grandfather of Juan  Limbo and the  father of Silvestra Vergara were brothers of  Petra Vergara.  As is natural  this relationship, by  consanguinity and by affinity, awakened in the heart of both spouses a feeling  of sorrow for the  deceased and commiseration for the assailants.  As both parties were relatives,  they thought that the matter could be settled, and so when the first investigations were made they did not tell who had caused the death of the said Silvestra Vergara, and they only revealed their names when they were summoned to testify before the  justice of the peace in the preliminary investigation and in the Court of First Instance in the trial of the case.

Everyday life and the result  of investigations made in the field of experimental psychology show that the contradictions of witnesses generally  occur  in the  details of  a certain  incident, after a long series of  questionings, and far from being an evidence of  falsehood constitute a demonstration of good faith.  Inasmuch as not all  those who witness an incident are impressed in like manner, it  is but natural that in relating their impressions they should not agree in  the minor  details; hence, the contradictions in their testimony.

As to a witness  contradicting himself on  the circumstances of an  act or  different acts, this may be due to a long series of  questions on cross-examination during  which the mind becomes tired  to such  a degree that the witness does not understand what he is testifying about, especially if the questions, in their majority are leading and tend to make him ratify a  former  contrary declaration.  In this case the mind, incapable of reasoning, only reflects,  like an  echo,  the  idea suggested.  Professor  Ed.  Claparede, Director of the Psychological Laboratory of the University of Geneva in his work "What is the Value  of Evidence" says: " 'In the  giving of evidence suggestion plays a most important part.  The simple fact of questioning a witness, of pressing him to  answer, enormously increases the risk of errors in his evidence.  The form of the question also influences the  value  of the reply that is made to it.  Let us suppose,, for instance, that some  persons  are questioned about the color of  a certain dog.  The replies are likely to be much more  correct if we ask the witnesses,  "What is (was) the color of the dog?"  than  if we  were to say to them, "Was the dog white, or was it brown ?"  The question will be positively suggestive if we ask, "Was the dog white?" *  *   *  A leading question propounded to a witness may, by creating an inference in his mind, cause him to  testify in accordance with the suggestion conveyed by the  question; his answer may be "rather an echo to the question" than a genuine  recollection of events  *  *  *.'"  (Moore  on Facts, vol. II, pp. 913, 914.)

This same thing that happens to ordinary witnesses is far worse when the witnesses  are aged and  ignorant  and therefore we should not discredit the testimony  of a witness who  is old just because he has made  some contradictions during a  long  and tedious cross-examination.  (Op. Cit, pp. 810-1410.)  This is exactly what happened to the government  witnesses Calixto Macaraig and Petra Vergara.  These witnesses were subjected to a long series of questions on cross-examination, the majority of which were leading. Old age and ignorance, together with weariness,  could not resist the  psychological influence of those leading  questions which, as will be seen by their answers,  are but the echo of such questions.

The fact that Petra Vergara, who is over 100 years  old, when making her sworn statement  to  the justice of the peace five days after the commission of the  crime, stated that it took place before sunset,  seemingly  contradicting the testimony of her  husband, Calixto  Macaraig, to the effect that the crime  took  place  after 10 o'clock in the morning as in fact it did cannot be ascribed to a voluntary falsehood but to her forgetfulness of proximate facts and events due to the  debility of her senile memory.  The testimony  of  these witnesses to the effect that Silvestra Vergara was clubbed to  death and relieved of her money and the basket  that she carried deserves credit, inasmuch as their testimony on this point has been corroborated by the contusions and wounds found on the  body of the deceased.

The only question to determine is whether Silvestra Vergara was deprived of her life and  property by the herein accused or by other persons.  The theory that the crime was committed by other persons may be readily discarded.  Calixto Macaraig at 60  years  of  age and Petra Vergara at 100 years, both near relatives of Juan Limbo and Pedro Limbo, would  not accuse them of the commission of such a grave crime  if, in reality,  other people  had  committed it.

It is true that the  defense attempted to prove that Petra Vergara  had ill feelings against Pedro Limbo's wife as she suspected that her husband  (Petra Vergara's)  maintained illicit relations with  the former.  Petra Vergara, however, denied any such ill  feeling stating that all she did was to advise the wife of Pedro Limbo that if  her  husband was absent and another man came to her house, that she should come  down under some pretext as, for example,  to sweep the ground, and that she gave  this advice because Pedro Limbo's wife was very young and without much experience in life.   To those who are  familiar with ancient  Filipino customs,  the advice of Petra Vergara to the wife of Pedro Limbo would seem  only natural, especially when  we consider  that she was the great grandmother of Pedro's wife. But even supposing that there  was jeolousy in this  case, since neither Juan Limbo nor  Pedro Limbo  was the real and apparent cause thereof, but the wife of Pedro Limbo, it is not reasonable to suppose that a woman one hundred years old and a great grandmother, at that, unheeding the voice of her conscience and  the call of the blood, should accuse her great grandson of a capital crime in order to avenge herself of an alleged grievance against her honor as a wife.

Coming now to the defense of alibi, the evidence shows that while  it is true that the defendant Pedro Limbo was ill with fever he was able to walk around and it was not physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was  committed.  As to whether or not he left the house of his mother, the only evidence  is the testimony of Gregorio Magpantay, father-in-law of  Pedro Limbo, that of Pedro Limbo himself and that of Gervasio Laraya.  The first two witnesses deserve no credit at all because they are interested  parties and consequently partial.  As  to  the third witness, his testimony is too incredible to deserve any credit..  Indeed, it is a very strange coincidence that he had to work repairing a rake precisely  on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and  Easter  Sunday,, during which time Pedro Limbo is alleged to have been ill and not working in his  own house  but in the house of  Pedro Limbo's father where the latter was staying, just  for the flimsy reason-that he did not have the necessary tool for that kind of work,

The accused-appellant finds support for his alibi in the testimony of Lieutenant Antonio Diano of the Constabulary. The testimony of this witness as to the illness  of Pedro Limbo is devoid of any value, because it refers to a statement made to him by other  persons; hence, it is hearsay. The defense sets  up, as an unfavorable circumstance to the prosecution, the fact that the prosecuting attorney did not introduce as a witness one Pastor Maralit who had seen the corpse  and had  given information  about it to the officers of the law. The prosecuting attorney explained that the non-presentation of such witness was because it was not necessary as, with  the evidence  already presented, there was enough prima facie evidence to sustain the guilt of the defendant.  The prosecuting attorney has the power to determine  the amount and  kind of evidence  that  he will present in a case, and when he has  considered that what he  has presented is  sufficient, he is not compelled to present any  more  even if he has  more evidence at his command.   The judge trying the case may, however, call other witnesses if, in his opinion,  the evidence presented is  not sufficient.

For the reasons above stated we are of the opinion that the evidence introduced during the trial shows beyond  a reasonable doubt that the herein accused Pedro Limbo and Juan Limbo were the persons who killed Silvestra Vergara and who relieved her of her money. The acts committed by them constitute  the crime of  robbery with homicide defined and punished by article 402 of the Penal Code, the penalty being from life imprisonment to death.  In the application of the  penalty there must be taken into consideration  the aggravating circumstance of disregard to age and sex, compensated  by the extenuating circumstance of lack of instruction.  Wherefore  the penalty to  be imposed should be in the  medium  degree, that  is, life imprisonment.

In view whereof, and there being no error in the appealed judgment, the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts with costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.