US VS.

PANLILIO
G.R. No. L-9876
Doctrine:

The orders, rules and regulations of an administrative officers or body issued pursuant to a statute
havethe force of law but are not penal in nature and a violation of such orders is not a offense
punishable by law unless the statute expressly penalizes such violation.

FACTS:

In Feb. 1913, all of the carabaos belonging to accused, Panlilio having been exposed to the
dangerousand contagious disease known as rinderpest, were, in accordance with an order of duly-
authorizedagent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a corral in the barrio of Masamat,
Pampanga;that, on said place, Panlilio, illegally and voluntarily and without being authorized so to do,
and whilethe quarantine against said carabaos was still in force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to
betaken from the corral in which they were then quarantined and conducted from one place to
another;that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants and agents took the said carabaos from
thesaid corral and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them.The accused
was convicted of violation of Act 1760 relating to the quarantining of animals sufferingfrom dangerous
communicable or contagious diseases and sentencing him to pay a fine of P40 withsubsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of trial. The accused contendsthat the facts
alleged in the information and proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of Act No. 1760.

ISSUE:

Whether accused can be penalized for violation of the order of the Bureau of Agriculture?

HELD:

NO. Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or
madeunlawful, nor is there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. Section 8 of Act
No.1760 provides that any person violating any of the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction,
bepunished. However, the only sections of the Act which prohibit acts and pronounce them as
unlawfulare Sections 3, 4 and 5. This case does not fall within any of them. A violation of the orders of
theBureau of Agriculture, as authorized by paragraph, is not a violation of the provision of the Act.
Theorders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly be said to have the force of law,
arestatutes and particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal
offenseunless the statute itself somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it.
Nowhere inAct No. 1760 is a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal offense,
nor is suchviolation punished in any way therein. However, the accused did violate Art. 581, par 2 of the
PenalCode which punishes any person who violates regulations or ordinances with reference to
epidemic