THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. LUIS TORIBIO, defendant-appellant January 26, 1910

DOCTRINE: Police power can refer not merely to condemnation and seizure, but also to total destruction
itself, provided that (a) the public interest is served and (b) the means should be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and should not be unduly harsh, abusive, or oppressive. Thus, nuisances can be
abated; and rotting canned goods may be destroyed. If the condemnation, seizure, or destruction is unjustified,
the owner is entitled to compensation. (See Art. 436)

FACTS:
 Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of Carmen in the province of Bohol.
 The trial court of Bohol found that the respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao
without a permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation
of 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.
 The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is prohibiting is the slaughter of large cattle in the
municipal slaughter house without a permit given by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that
the municipality of Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his dwelling.
 Respondent said that the statute is unconstitutional and in violation of the Philippine Bill of Rights which
provides that “no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law.”
 Act No. 1147 prohibits the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption which are still fit for
agricultural work or for draft purposes.
 The appellant applied for a permit to slaughter his carabaos but it was denied because that the carabaos
were deemed not unfit "for agricultural work or for draft purposes." Counsel for appellant contends that the
statute, in so far as it undertakes to penalize the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption as food,
without first obtaining a permit which cannot be procured in the event that the animal is not unfit "for
agricultural work or draft purposes," is unconstitutional and in violation of the terms of section 5 of the
Philippine Bill, which provides that "no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law."

ISSUES: Whether or not the prohibition provided by the Act is unconstitutional for depriving any person of
their property without due process of law?

RULING: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state - to regulate the killing for human consumption
of large cattle still fit for work.

 The Act primarily seeks to protect the "large cattle" of the Philippine Islands against theft and to make
easy the recovery and return of such cattle to their proper owners when lost, strayed, or stolen.
 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.