US vs.

Toribio
Post under case digests, Political Law at Sunday, February 26, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

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

Police power is 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 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. 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.
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. Most importantly, the respondents carabao
was found to be fit for farm work.
These reasons satisfy the requisites for the valid exercise
of police power.
Act No. 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 serves as a
mere regulation for the consumption of these private
properties for the protection of general welfare and public
interest. Thus, the demand for compensation of the owner
must fail.