[G.R. No.

10606           September 11, 1915]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANDRES VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
Tirso de Irureta Goyena for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

Facts:

On July 5, 1914, a defendant, Andres Villanueva was charged by the complainant, Isidro
Benter, "while quarreling with his opponent, Isidro Benter, with having suddenly
snatched the bolo which the latter was carrying at his belt and with it inflicting
upon him a wound in the palm of the right hand that incapacitated the
aggrieved party from performing work for more than thirty days and which
rendered the said principal member entirely useless."But Villanueva was not
Benter's opponent nor was there any quarrel between the two. Neither did
Villanueva inflict a wound upon Benter. The latter injured himself by an accident
arising out of his own act.

On October 10, 1914, the complaint was not able to case immediately last July
5, 1914. Thus, Benter was able to testify that the wound delayed healing for
more than forty days. The trial was held on December 8, and then Benter
showed a scar in the right palm that ran from the base of the little finger to the
first joint of the index finger.

The judge noted that the index finger was stiff and that the man could not
extend the ring finger. Neither was the allegation contained in the complaint, to
the effect that the right hand had been rendered entirely useless, proven at the
trial. The court asked the cirujano ministrante called as an expert witness to
look at the scar to see if Benter could work as well with his hand in that state as
when it was in its former normal condition. The witness said no, for the reason
that it was not entirely healed inside; that on the other hand no arteries were
injured, for if they were, articulation would be impossible.

Issue:
Whether or not Villanueva is criminally liable for the result which is not
intended.

Ruling:
The judgment appealed is reversed. Andres Villanueva was acquitted with the
costs of both instances de oficio.

1
Thus, one who, because of curiosity, snatched the bolo carried by the
offended party at his belt, and the latter instinctively caught the blade of
said bolo in trying to retain it, is not criminally liable for the physical
injuries caused, because there is no provision in the Revised Penal Code
which punishes that act of snatching the property of another just to satisfy
curiosity.

Paragraph 1 of Article 4 says that criminal liability shall be incurred by any

person “committing a felony,” not merely performing an act. A felony is an
act or omission punishable by the R.P.C. If the act is not punishable by the
code, it is not a felony. But the felony committed by the offender should
be one committed by means of dolo, that is, with malice, because
paragraph 1 of Article 4 speaks of wrongful act done” different from that
which he intended.”