No. 11846-R | 05 February 1955
TOPIC: Art 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
FACTS:
Accused's profile:
- Luisa Navarro
- 13 y/o
- violation: Anti-Profiteering Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 608 and 728
- case: sold Hershey's coca for P1.20 to Rogelio Mendoza and P. Santos who turned to be agents of the Price Enforcement Division of the PRISCO.
- sentence: sent under the care and custody of the Philippine Training School for Girls at Mandaluyong, Rizal; confined until she reaches the age of majority, unless sooner released by order of the court
- lower court's ruling: GUILTY of Anti-Profiteering Law
- appeal: reverse the decision by virtue of Art. 12, Paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code (exempting minors of minors age 9-15 from criminal liability, unless acted w/ discernment)
- Provision: RPC - ARTICLE 10. Offenses Not Subject to the Provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
1. Luisa was asked to man her sister's store in Quiapo. Rogelio Mendoza and P. Santos who turned to be agents of the Price Enforcement Division of the PRISCO, bought Hershey's cocoa from her at the price of P1.20 which was overpriced and a violation of Anti-Profiteering Law.
2. She was found guilty and sent under the care and custody of the Philippine Training School for Girls at Mandaluyong, Rizal; confined until she reaches the age of majority, unless sooner released by order of the court.
3. 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 Revised Penal Code, should have been applied in her
favor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused acted with discernment to afford exemption by virtue of Art. 12, par. 3 of the RPC.
HELD:
NO. The accused didn't act with discernment. Although Republic Act No. 509, Anti Profiteering Law, is silent as to the proceedings to be taken in the event the offender is
a minor, Art. 10 of the same code provides "Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary." Since Art. 10 is applied to mala in se cases, it is apparent that it should also be applied in mala prohibita cases. During the cross-examination, Luisa answered that she sold the cocoa at P1.20 although she normall sells it at P1.10 simply because they didn't bargain. Her frank and unhesitating answer that she knows what ceiling price means can be construed as lack of discernment as to the meaning of "ceiling price." Even the lower court doubted that she understood the import of the question yet they still ruled that she wouldn't be exempted and applied ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Also, the court didn't make any finding as to whether the accused acted with discernment since they computed her age until the date of trial and not until the commission of the offense. Thus, the appellant acted without discernment when she sold a can of cocoa to agents of the PRISCO at a price above the government price on July 28, 1952. The ruling is reversed and Luisa would be under the care and custody of her parents for her surveillance and education.
RATIONALE:
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS TREAT MINORS DIFFERENTLY DUE TO THEIR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE.
- CRIMINAL LAW: The principle Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith should not be applied with EQUAL FULL FORCE in the case of MINORS.
- CIVIL LAW: considers MINORS WITHOUT CAPACITY TO ACT and THEIR CONTRACTS ARE VOIDABLE at their initiative and choice.
Comments
Post a Comment