US vs. Toribio, 15 Phil 85
FACTS:
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 Toribio 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.
Appellant also 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(s):
WON the prohibition and the penalty imposed in Act No. 1147 is limited only to the slaughter of large cattle at the
municipal slaughterhouse.
WON Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and
unauthorized exercise of police power.
HELD:
1. NO. The prohibition and penalty imposed in Act No. 1147 applies generally to the slaughter of large cattle for
human consumption, anywhere, without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, and specifically to
the killing for food of large cattle at a municipal slaughterhouse without such permit.
Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that construction should be
adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for
which the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other
provisions of the statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment.
Therefore, sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for
human consumption of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in section 30.
2. NO. Act no. 1147 is not a taking of the property for public use, within the meaning of the constitution, but is a
just and legitimate exercise of the power of the legislature to regulate and restrain such particular use of the
property as would be inconsistent with the rights of the publics. All property is acquired and held under the tacit
condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or greatly impair the public rights and
interests of the community.
The Supreme Court cited events that happen in the Philippines like an epidemic that wiped 70-100% of the
population of carabaos.. The Supreme Court also said that these animals are vested with public interest for they
are fundamental use for the production of crops. These reasons satisfy the requisites of a valid exercise of police
power
Finally, SC said that article 1147 is not an exercise of the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does
not constitute the taking of carabaos for public purpose; it just serve as a mere regulation for the consumption of
these private properties for the protection of general welfare and public interest.