G.R. No. L-5060

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUIS TORIBIO, defendant-appellant.

January 26, 1910

—

FACTS:
Luis Toribio, the appellant, was found to have slaughtered a carabao for human consumption in the municipality of Carmen, Province of Bohol, without first securing a permit from the municipal treasurer, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147 , which regulates the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle. It was established that the town of Carmen did not have a municipal slaughterhouse. The appellant contended that the provisions of Act No. 1147 , specifically the prohibition in Section 30 and the penalty in Section 33, only apply to the slaughter of large cattle at a municipal slaughterhouse, and therefore, since Carmen had no such facility, he could not be held liable.

ISSUE:
1. Does Act No. 1147 prohibit and penalize the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere without a municipal treasurer’s permit, or only when such slaughter occurs at a municipal slaughterhouse?
2. Is the prohibition on slaughtering carabaos fit for agricultural work or draft purposes, without a permit, a valid exercise of police power?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

1. The Court held that the prohibition in Section 30 and the penalty in Section 33 of Act No. 1147 apply to the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer. The phrase “at the municipal slaughterhouse” limits only the words “killed for food” or “killing for food,” not the broader “slaughtered” or “slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption.” The Court reasoned that this interpretation aligns with the primary purpose of Act No. 1147 , which is to protect large cattle against theft and facilitate their recovery through an elaborate system of registration and identification. This system would be undermined if animals could be slaughtered privately or clandestinely without proper permits and proof of ownership.
2. The Court further ruled that the provisions of Act No. 1147 , particularly the restriction on slaughtering carabaos fit for agricultural work or draft purposes (Section 31), constitute a valid exercise of the State’s police power. The prohibition is deemed “reasonably necessary” to protect the community from losing the services of these animals, which are vital for agricultural productivity. This measure serves the general public interest and is a “just restraint of an injurious use of property,” aimed at securing the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. Therefore, it does not violate the due process clause of Section 5 of the Philippine Bill.