G.R. No.

5060, January 26, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Luis TORIBIO, defendant and appellant.

CARSON, J.:

FACTS:

Appellant Toribio was found by the trial court of Bohol violating Sections 30 and 33 of Act No.
1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the
slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft purposes for human consumption.
Appellant slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered his carabao without a permit from the municipal
treasurer of the municipality. It appears that in the town of Carmen, in the Province of Bohol, wherein the
animal was slaughtered there is no municipal slaughterhouse, and counsel for appellant contends that
under such circumstances the provisions of Act No. 1147 do not prohibit nor penalize the slaughter of
large cattle without a permit of the municipal treasure.

Appellant contends that he applied for a permit to slaughter the animal but was not given one
because the carabao was not found to be “unfit for agricultural work” which resulted to appellant to
slaughter said carabao in a place other than the municipal slaughterhouse. Appellant then assails the
validity of a provision under Act No. 1147 which states that only carabaos unfit for agricultural work can
be slaughtered. In addition, appellant contended that the act constitutes a taking of property for public
use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation of owners, and
it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of the
enjoyment of their private property.

ISSUE: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle,
is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power. (NO)

RULING:

It is a valid exercise of police power of the state. Police power is defined as the inherent power of
the state to legislate laws which may interfere with personal liberties. To justify the state in the exercise of
its sovereign police power it must appear (1) that the interest of the general public requires it and (2) that
the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. 

The act primarily seeks to protect large cattle against theft to make it easy for the recovery and
return to owners, which encouraged them to regulate the registration and slaughter of large cattle. Also,
several years prior to the enactment of the said law, an epidemic struck the Philippine islands which
threatened the survival of carabaos in the country. In some provinces seventy, eighty and even one
hundred percent of their local carabaos perished due to the said epidemic. This drove the prices of
carabaos up to four or five-fold, as a consequence carabao theft became rampant due to the luxurious
prices of these work animals. Moreover, this greatly affected the food production of the country which
prompted the government to import rice from its neighboring countries.  As these work animals are
vested with public interest for they are of fundamental use for the production of crops, the government
was prompted to pass a law that would protect these work animals. The purpose of the law is to stabilize
the number of carabaos in the country as well as to redistribute them throughout the entire archipelago. It
was also the same reason why large cattles fit for farm work was prohibited to be slaughtered for human
consumption.  Further, the court is of the opinion that the act applies generally to the slaughter of large
cattle for human consumption, ANYWHERE, without a permit duly secured from the municipal
treasurer, For to do otherwise is to defeat the purpose of the law and the intent of the law makers. 

Obviously, the provisions of the statute under consideration were imposed strictly for the
promotion of general welfare and public interest. These reasons satisfy the requisites for the valid
exercise of police power. The SC affirmed the decision of the trial court.