125 PEOPLE VS.

NAVARRO KED
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUISA NAVARRO
G.R. No. 11846-R | 1955 | De Leon, J.
Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liabilities > Exempting Circumstances > Minority
DOCTRINES: The age of the accused, for purposes of determining whether she comes within the exempting circumstances
provide for under paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Code, should be computed only up to the commission of the crime charged,
not up to the date of trial. The RPC considers a minor over 9 years old and under 15 years as criminally irresponsible, unless he
has acted with discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Article 80 of the Code.

CASE SUMMARY: Luisa Navarro, at the time of the crime 13 years, 11 months and 3 days old sixth grade pupil, was convicted
of violating E.O. No. 447 in connection with Sec. 12 of R.A No. 509, known as the Anti-Profiteering Law, as amended by R.A.
Nos. 608 and 728, and sentenced to be committed 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. She sold a tin of Hershey’s Cocoa above
ceiling price. SC reversed decision, applying RPC provisions to special laws (supplementary and exempting circumstance).
FACTS:
• July 1952 - Luisa Navarro, 13 years, 11 months and 3 days old sixth grade pupil, was asked by her elder sister to look
after her said sister’s sidewalk store located in front of the Quiapo market, City of Manila.
• She was approached by Price Enforcement Division agents of the PRISCO. Agent P. Santos asked Luisa Navarro for
the price on one tin of Hershey’s cocoa, and the latter said that it was P1.20. Santos paid the exact amount and took
one tin of Hershey’s cocoa. Immediately thereafter, Luisa Navarro was grabbed and was told that she was being arrested
for selling coca eleven centavos more than its selling price.
• RTC/CFI - Convicted her to be committed to the care and custody of the Philippine Training School for Girls at
Mandaluyong, Rizal, pursuant to Executive Order No. 447 in connection with Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 509 also known as
the Anti-Profiteering law, then and there to be confined until she reaches the age of majority.
• In the appeal before the SC, appellant's counsel and the Solicitor General urge a reversal of the decision under review,
claiming that the benefits of the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 3, of the RPC, should have been applied in herfavor.

ISSUE:
1. W/N Art 12 par 3 of the RPC should be applicable on a violation of an E.O. promulgated pursuant to a special law
penal in character? – YES.
2. W/N the appellant has acted without discernment – YES.

RULING:
1. YES. RPC provisions on supplementary application and exempting circumstance shall be applied.

R.A. No. 509, as amended by R.A. Nos. 608 and 728, is silent as to the proceedings to be taken in the event the offender is a
minor. There is also nothing contained in said special laws that the RPC shall not be suppletory to their provisions.

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." Courts have already consistently held that Art. 22 of the RPC is applicable to
violations of special laws and ordinances. (U.S. vs. Parrone, 24 Phil., 29; People vs. Tamayo, 62 Phil., 225).

Jurisprudence wherein RPC was applied to special laws pursuant to Art. 10 of the said Code:
• U.S. vs. Parrone, supra – The Court commented that it did not believe that the Legislature, in enacting Art 7 of the
Penal Code (Now Arti 10, RPC) intended to provide that Art 22 should not be applicable to special laws. Arts. 100 and
39 of the Code were applicable to violations of Act No. 3992, otherwise known as the Motor Vehicle Law, with respect
to indemnity to heirs and subsidiary imprisonment
• People vs. Tamayo – Art. 91 of the RPC was applicable for violations of Sec. 2722 of the Revised Admin Code, with
respect to the period of prescription for violations penalized by any law or part of law administered by the BIR, because
the Revised Admin Code contains no rule regarding the application or enforcement of the period of prescription
established therein.

If the provisions of the RPC were held applicable, in a supplementary way, to the Motor Vehicle Law and Sec. 2722 of the
Revised Admin Code, in order to enforce the penal provisions of said laws; if a minor, who is over 9 years old and under 15
years, who commits, for instance, homicide, without discernment, is exempt from criminal responsibility by the Code
125 PEOPLE VS. NAVARRO KED
by reason of his age, with more reason should the same exempting circumstance be invoked in favor of an accused
who has acted without discernment in the violation of an offense punishable by a special law, because a malum in se,
like homicide, is undoubtedly more intensely evil than a malum prohibitum, like violation of the Anti-Profiteering
Law (Bishop on Criminal Law, S. 658).

Intent is immaterial in crimes mala prohibita. It is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily committed. But the
circumstances which exempt from criminal liability are based on lack of intelligence, intent and spontaneity.
• In the language in which Art. 12, par. 3, was worded, the State has the burden of proving that the minor has acted with
discernment, otherwise such minor shall be adjudged to be criminally irresponsible solely by reason of his age showing
lack of intelligence.
• It could not have been the intention of the law-making body to bar the application of the exempting circumstances
provided for under Art.12, par. 3, of the RPC, in the proper cases in special penal statutes.

2. YES. The appellant acted without discernment.

Discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 9,
who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
(People vs. Doquena, 68 Phil., 580).

Prof. Padilla, in his book on Criminal Law (1953 Ed.), 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."

In the case at bar, an inference of discernment might be drawn from the result of the investigation of the appellant:

"Q. What happened on that day?- A. On that day, a man came and asked the price of Hershey's cocoa, when I said it was P1.20 he bought
it without bargaining for the price. I used to sell cocoa at P1.10 but the man who bought from me did not
ask for the reduction so I gave him at P1.20.
Q. Do you know the ceiling price of commodities?- A. Yes, sir."

The manner 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 P1.20, was above the regulation price for the same. Furthermore, young
as she is and being then only a 6th grade pupil, the Court does not believe that she understood what the word "ceiling" really
means. Perhaps, she thought that her investigators were asking her for the selling prices of the commodities displayed in the
store of her sister.

DISPOSITIVE: Decision reversed. In conformity with the recommendation of the Solicitor General, appellant Luisa
Navarro is hereby committed to the care and custody of her family who shall be charged with her surveillance and education,
pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 12.