Scribd
Upload
63 views1 page

Us V, Toribo Statcon

The case involved a defendant who slaughtered a carabao for human consumption without a permit in a town that did not have a slaughterhouse. The defendant argued the law requiring permits did not apply in this situation. However, the court held that as long as slaughter of large cattle for human consumption is done without a permit, the penalty applies regardless of whether a slaughterhouse exists in the town. The purpose of the law is to protect large cattle from disease and theft, as well as protect human life, allowing restrictions on property rights when justified.

Uploaded by

Jen Anisco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views1 page

Us V, Toribo Statcon

The case involved a defendant who slaughtered a carabao for human consumption without a permit in a town that did not have a slaughterhouse. The defendant argued the law requiring permits did not apply in this situation. However, the court held that as long as slaughter of large cattle for human consumption is done without a permit, the penalty applies regardless of whether a slaughterhouse exists in the town. The purpose of the law is to protect large cattle from disease and theft, as well as protect human life, allowing restrictions on property rights when justified.

Uploaded by

Jen Anisco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Anisco, Jenelyn D. Statcon US v.

Toribo
Case No. 304 G.R. No. 5060 (January 26, 1910) Chapter VII, Page 295, Footnote No. 48

FACTS:
Evidence suggests that Appellant slaughtered the carabao for human consumption, which is in violation of Act No. 1147, An Act Regulating the Registration, Branding, Slaughter of Large Cattle. It appears that in the town of Carmen in Bohol, there arent any slaughterhouses. Appellant suggests that under such circumstances, the provisions of Act No. 1147 do not penalize slaughter of large cattle without permit. Appellant also alleges that it is an infringement on his right over his property (carabao).

ISSUE:
W/N Act No. 1147 applies only when there is a municipal slaughterhouse, and the slaughter of a carabao is made therein.

HELD:
No. As long as the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption is done without a permit secured first from the municipal treasurer, the penalty under the Act applies. The Act primarily seeks to protect the large cattle of the Philippine Islands, against theft and to make recovery and return of the same easy. More importantly, it is to protect the very life and existence of the inhabitants of the Philippines, imperiled by the continued destruction of large cattle by disease, making it reasonable for the legislative to prohibit and penalize a perfectly legal act utilizing personal properties of citizens (cattle) if not for the extraordinary conditions/threat present. Well settled is the doctrine of the States legitimate exercise of the right of eminent domain laid down in jurisprudence. Where the language of the statute is fairly susceptible of many interpretations, that which stays true with the intent of the law must be observed.

You might also like