CASE DIGEST : US vs TURIBIO

G.R. No. L-5060 January 26, 1910 THE UNITED STATES,

plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUIS TORIBIO, defendantappellant.

Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the

state.

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 (1) 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, (2)
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.

Ruling: The Supreme court Said 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
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
The Supreme Court also said that if they will follow the
contention of Toribio it will defeat the purpose of the
law.
The police power rests upon necessity and the right of
self-protection and if ever the invasion of private
property by police regulation can be justified, The
Supreme Court think that the reasonable restriction
placed upon the use of carabaos by the provision of
the law under discussion must be held to be

authorized as a reasonable and proper exercise of that

power.
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 requesites of a valid exercise
of police power

The Supreme court finally said that article 1147 is not

an exercise of the inherent power of eminent domain.
The said law does not constitute the taking of caraboes
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.