UNITED STATES vs.

LUIS TORIBIO
15 Phil. 85
January 26, 1910

Facts:
Luis Toribio was charged by the trial court for having slaughtered or caused to be
slaughtered for human consumption, the carabao described in the information, without a permit
from the municipal treasure of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of the
provisions of sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the registration, branding,
and slaughter of large cattle. However, the appellant contends that the prohibition provided by
the R.A. No. 1147 is limited to: 1) slaughter of large cattle for human consumption in a municipal
slaughter without a permit duly secured from the municipal treasurer, and (2) cases of killing of
large cattle for food in a municipal slaughterhouse without a permit duly secured from the
municipal treasurer; Therefore, since the municipality of Carmen was not provided with a
municipal slaughterhouse, neither the prohibition nor the penalty is applicable to cases of
slaughter of large cattle without a permit in that municipality. Furthermore, the counsel for
appellant contends 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:
WON Act No. 1147 is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power?

Ruling:
NO. The Supreme Court opined that Sections 30 and 33 of the said Act 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. However, the law in question "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 suchparticular use of the property as would be
inconsistent with or injurious to the rights of the public.

The enactment of this statute was rooted from the threat of virulent contagious or infectious
disease coupled with the extinction and sudden rise on the price of carabaos, the crime of cattle
stealing became extremely prevalent throughout the Islands, necessitating the enactment of a
special law penalizing with the severestpenalties the theft of carabaos. Confronted by such
conditions, the supreme court think it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute
under consideration was required by "the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class;" and that the prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for human
consumption, so long as these animals are fit for agricultural work or draft purposes was a
"reasonably necessary" limitation on private ownership, to protect the community from the loss of
the services of such animals. Therefore, the judgement of conviction and sentence imposed is
hereby affirmed.