No. 11846-R.

February 5, 1995
People v Navarro

Recit-ready:
This case is about the determination of criminal liability and penalty of Luisa Navarro.

Facts:
She was 13 years, 11 months and 3 days old on July 28, 1952, a sixth grade pupil. Luisa
Navarro was asked by her elder sister to look after her said sisters sidewalk store located
in front of the Quiapo market.
She was approached by Rogelio Mendoza and P. Santos and turned out to be agents of
the Price Enforcement Division of the PRISCO. Agent P. Santos asked Luisa the price of
one tin of Hersheys cocoa and the latter said it was Php 1.20, Santos paid the exact
amount and soon thereafter, Luisa was grabbed and was told that she was being arrested
for selling cocoa eleven centavos more than its selling price.
Luisa was accused and, after due trial, found guilty of violating Executive Order No. 447
in connection with section 12 of Republic Act No. 509 known as the Anti-Profiteering Law
and was sentenced to the care and custody of the Philippine Training School for Girls at
Mandaluyong, Rizal, then and there to be confined until she reaches the age of majority,
unless sooner released by order of the court.
Appellants counsel sought the reversal of the decision claiming that the benefits of the
provisions of Art 12, par 3 of the RPC, should have been applied in her favor.

Issue:
Whether the appellant in this case has acted with or without discernment?

Held: No, Luisa has acted without discernment in the selling of the tin of Hersheys cocoa. Prof.
Padilla, in his book on Criminal Law, says that discernment is more than the mere
understanding between right and wrong. Rather, it means the mental capacity of a minor
between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. The
result of the investigation (the manner in which the appellant frankly and unhesitatingly
answered her investigators would tend to show that she was unaware that the price of one tin
of cocoa, which she quoted at Php 1.20, was above the regulation price for the same.
Furthermore, her age and year level in school must be taken into consideration. She being a 6 th
grade pupil, the court does not believe that she understood what the word ceiling really means.
She merely substituted for her sister, the record does not also disclose that she is a merchant. It
is therefore safe to conclude that she did not know the laws and regulations on price control.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be reversed. Luisa Navarro is hereby committed
to the care and custody of her family who shall be charged with her surveillance and education,
pursuant to par 2, Art 12 (3) of the RPC.
Editors notes:
Art 10 of the code provides that offenses which are or in the future may be punishable
under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this code. However, it adds that
This code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.
The principle of ignorance of the law excuses no one should not be applied with equal full
force in the cases of minors. Our criminal and civil laws treat minors differently due to
their lack of intelligence.
The RPC considers a minor who is over 9 years old and under 15 years as criminally
irresponsible, unless he has acted with discernment.
The age of the accused, for purposes of determining whether she comes within the
exempting circumstances provided for under par 3 of Art 12 of the code, should be
computed only up to the commission of the crime charged, not up to the date of the trial.