US vs Subingsubing

Facts:
A Japanese called Mariano, approached and said indecent remarks to Pablo Montealto's wife who was walking
along one of the streets of San Remigio, Cebu in October, 1914. Upon the woman's rejection, the Japanese seized
her hands. Juan Subingsubing, who went near them upon seeing the situation, told the Japanese to let the Mrs.
Montealto go, but the Japanese refused. At that instant, Pablo Montealto, a 78-year old, came up to his wife's
rescue, but he was suddenly hit him in the face and shoved to the ground buy the Japanese who then got on top
of him and with one hand, choked him while beating him with his fist.
Juan Subingsubing, thereafter approached the two men, and instructed Montealto not to move for he was going to
pull the assailant off, but Montealto said he had stabbed the Japanese with a gaff such as is used on gamecocks.
The Japanese died because of the stab wound. A 12 year old witness, Alipio Sinining, however, said that when
Montealto was on the ground being choked by the Japanese, Subingsubing handed him something, but the witness
could not identify what the item was.
Pablo Montealto and Juan Subingsubing were charged with homicide. On the ground of self-defense, Montealto
was acquitted but Juan Subingsubing was convicted for having furnished Montealto with the weapon that killed
the Japanese.
Issue:
Whether or not Juan Subingsubing has criminal liability in the death of the Japanese, Mariano.
Held:
No. The court found no satisfactory and conclusive proof that the defendant Subingsubing gave a gaff to Pablo
Montealto he the latter was on the ground being beaten and choked by the Japanese. The only incriminating
circumstance that appeared in the case is the testimony of Sinining, which was contradicted by the defendants.
Montealto claimed that he had the gaff, which he used to defend himself, in his shirt pocket.
The court stated that defendant Juan Subingsubing, who denied the charges against him, would be acquitted, if
the testimony of Montealto is given more weight than Sinining's testimony.
The court explained that Subingsubing performed no physical act in defense of Pablo Montealto. He did not attack
or even lay hands on the person of the Japanese. under No. 6 of article 8 of the Penal Code, which reads: "Anyone
who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second circumstances
mentioned in paragraph four are present, and the further circumstance that the person defending be not actuated
by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive."
But even holding the fact of furnishing a small, short knife to Montealto, when he was in a critical position and
plainly unable to defend himself, Juan Subingsubing did not act on revenge, resentment, or other illicit motive, the
third requisite established by the law; and since in holding the defense Montealto offered to the assault of the
Japanese to be lawful, and in declaring him exempt from all responsibility. The trial judge held that Montealto was
compelled by reasonable necessity to make use of a small knife to repel the unlawful attack that seriously
jeopardized his existence, it is just and logical to hold Juan Subingsubing only employed rational means to help
Montealto defending himself,
As the use of Montealto of said knife in defending himself has been judicially held to be lawful and right, so must
the act performed by Subingsubing in furnishing it to said Montealto who was under attack.
It has been an established jurisprudence that there can be an exemption from criminal responsibility on the
ground of defense of a third person. If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the
requisites the penal law lays down for exempting him from responsibility, should be acquitted of the charge in a
case prosecuted against him, then the person who simply furnished a weapon to the one who was in danger,
should logically also be exempted from responsibility.
Subingsubing was acquitted.