Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > December 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 9876 December 8, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PANLILIO

028 Phil 608:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9876. December 8, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADRIANO PANLILIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Pedro Abad Santos, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Corpus, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ANIMALS; REMOVAL OF CARABAOS FROM QUARANTINE. — Act No. 1760, entitled "An act to prevent the introduction into the Philippine Islands of dangerous communicable animal diseases, to prevent the spread of such diseases within the Islands, and for other purposes," does not punish the removal of carabaos, which had been exposed to a dangerous communicable disease, from a quarantine established on a portion of the premises of the accused, said carabaos having been simply removed from the corral in which they were quarantined and worked upon the adjoining lands of the accused, and they, at the time, not suffering from a dangerous communicable disease, or being recently imported, and the Secretary of the Interior not having made the declaration provided for in section 5 of that Act, and the said animals not having been driven or taken by the accused upon the highway, or from one island, province, municipality, township or settlement to another.

2. ID.; QUARANTINE REGULATIONS OF BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE. — While Act No. 1760, entitled as aforesaid, authorizes the Director of Agriculture, among other things, "to require that animals which are suffering from dangerous communicable diseases or have been exposed thereto be placed in quarantine at such place and for such time as may be deemed by him necessary to prevent the spread of the disease," a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made in pursuance of such authority will not be held to be criminal unless the statute expressly makes it so and provides a punishment.

3. ID.; ID.; VIOLATION OF. — Said Act, although it authorizes the Director of Agriculture to do certain things, as aforesaid, nowhere makes a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture unlawful or criminal, nor does it provide a punishment for such violation.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — Although the Act provides that "any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for each offense," such provision is not broad enough to cover a violation of an order of the Bureau of Agriculture lawfully made and promulgated under the authority conferred upon said bureau by said Act, the violation of such an order not being a violation "of the provisions of this Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; ID. — Orders of the Bureau of Agriculture issued in pursuance of the authority conferred by Act No. 1760, while they have, in a sense, the force of law, are not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal offense under said Act, the statute itself not expressly making it so.

6. CRIMINAL LAW; COMPLAINT; CONVICTION OF OFFENSE INCLUDED IN CHARGE. — While the acts charged .in the information do not constitute a violation of any of the provisions of Act No. 1760, they do constitute a violation of article 581, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, and, while the information charges that the acts set forth therein constitute a violation of Act No. 1760, the accused may be convicted of a violation of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga convicting the accused of a violation of the law relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from dangerous communicable or contagious diseases and sentencing him to pay a fine of p40, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the trial.

The information charges: "That on or about the 22d day of February, 1913, all of the carabaos belonging to the above-named accused having been exposed to the dangerous and contagious disease known as rinderpest, were, in accordance with an order of a duly-authorized agent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a corral in the barrio of Masamat, municipality of Mexico, Province of Pampanga, P. I.; that, on said date and at said place, the said accused, Adriano Panlilio, illegally and voluntarily and without being authorized so to do, and while the quarantine against said carabaos was still in force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken from the corral in which they were then quarantined and conducted from one place to another; that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants and agents took the said carabaos from the said corral and drove them from one place to another for the purpose of working them."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant demurred to this information on the ground that the acts complained of did not constitute a crime. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant duly excepted and pleaded not guilty.

From the evidence introduced by the prosecution on the trial of the cause it appears that the defendant was notified in writing on February 22, 1913, by a duly authorized agent of the Director of Agriculture, that all of his carabaos in the barrio of Masamat, municipality of Mexico, Pampanga Province, had been exposed to the disease commonly known as rinderpest, and that said carabaos were accordingly declared under quarantine, and were ordered kept in a corral designated by an agent of the Bureau of Agriculture and were to remain there until released by further order of the Director of Agriculture.

It further appears from the testimony of the witnesses. for the prosecution that the defendant fully understood that, according to the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, he was not to remove the animals, or to permit anyone else to remove them, from the quarantine in which they had been placed. In spite, however, of all this, the carabaos were taken from the corral by the commands of the accused and driven from place to place on his hacienda, and were used as work animals thereon in the same manner as if they had not been quarantined.

The contention of the accused is that the facts alleged in the information and proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of Act No. 1760 or any portion thereof.

We are forced to agree with this contention.

The original information against the accused charged a violation of section 6 of Act No. 1760 committed by the accused in that he ordered and permitted his carabaos, which, at the time, were in quarantine, to be taken from quarantine and moved from one place to another on his hacienda. An amended information was filed. It failed, however, to specify the section of Act No. 1760 alleged to have been violated, evidently leaving that to be ascertained by the court on the trial.

The only sections of Act No. 1760 which prohibit acts and pronounce them unlawful are 3, 4 and 5. This case does not fall within any of them. Section 3 provides, in effect, that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship or otherwise bring into the Philippine Islands any animal suffering from, infected with, or dead of any dangerous communicable disease, or any of the effects pertaining to such animal which are liable to introduce such disease into the Philippine Islands. Section 4 declares, substantially, that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, drive or otherwise take or transport from one island, province, municipality, township, or settlement to another any domestic animal suffering from any dangerous communicable disease or to expose such animal either alive or dead on any public road or highway where it may come in contact with other domestic animals. Section 5 provides that whenever the Secretary of the Interior shall declare that a dangerous communicable animal disease prevails in any island, province, municipality, township, or settlement and that there is danger of spreading such disease by shipping, driving or otherwise transporting or taking out of such island, province, municipality, township, or settlement any class of domestic animal, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to ship, drive or otherwise remove the kind of animals so specified from such locality except when accompanied by a certificate issued by authority of the Director of Agriculture stating the number and the kind of animals to be shipped, driven, taken or transported, their destination, manner in which they are authorized to be shipped, driven, taken, or transported, and their brands and distinguishing marks.

A simple reading of these sections demonstrates clearly that the case at bar does not fall within any of them. There is no question here of importation and there is no charge or proof that the animals in question were suffering from a dangerous communicable disease or that the Secretary of the Interior had made the declaration provided for in section 5 or that the accused had driven or taken said animals from one island, province, municipality, township or settlement to another. It was alleged in the information and proved on the trial that the animals had been exposed to a dangerous communicable disease and that they had been placed in a corral in quarantine on the premises of the accused and that he, in violation of the quarantine, had taken them from the corral and worked them upon the lands adjoining. They had not been in the highway nor moved from one municipality or settlement to another. They were left upon defendant’s hacienda, where they were quarantined, and there worked by the servants of the accused.

The Solicitor-General in his brief in this court admits that the sections referred to are not applicable to the case at bar and also admits that section 7 of said Act is not applicable. This section provides: "Whenever the Director of Agriculture shall order any animal placed in quarantine in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the owner of such animal, or his agent, shall deliver it at the place designated for the quarantine and shall provide it with proper food, water, and attendance. Should the owner or his agent fail to comply with this requirement the Director of Agriculture may furnish supplies and attendance needed, and the reasonable cost of such supplies and attendance shall be collectible from the owner or his agent."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are in accord with the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General with respect to this section, as we are with his opinion as to sections 3, 4, and 6. The law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to comply with the provisions of section 7, nor is the section itself so phrased as to warrant the conclusion that it was intended to be a penal section. The section provides the means by which the refusal of the owner to comply therewith shall be overcome and the punishment, if we may call it punishment, which he shall receive by reason of that refusal. It has none of the aspects of a penal provision or the form or substance of such a provision. It does not prohibit any act. It does not compel an act nor does it make the refusal to comply unlawful, nor does it really punish or impose a criminal penalty. The other sections of the law under which punishments may be inflicted are so phrased as to make the prohibited act unlawful, and section 8 provides the punishment for any act declared unlawful by the law.

The Solicitor-General suggests, but does not argue, that section 6 is applicable to the case at bar. Section 6 simply authorizes the Director of Agriculture to do certain things, among them, paragraph (c) "to require that animals which art suffering from dangerous communicable diseases or have been exposed thereto be placed in quarantine at such place and for such time as may be deemed by him necessary to prevent the spread of the disease." Nowhere in the law, however, is the violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. Section 8 provides that "any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for each offense." ’A violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, as authorized by paragraph (c), is not a violation of the provisions of the Act. The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly be said to have the force of law, are not statutes and particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way therein.

Finally, it is contended by the Government that if the offense stated in the information and proved upon the trial does not constitute a violation of any of the provisions of Act No. 1760, it does constitute a violation of article 581, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code. It provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A fine of not less than fifteen and not more than seventy pesetas and censure shall be imposed upon: . . .

"2. Any person who shall violate the regulations, ordinances, or proclamations issued with reference to any epidemic disease among animals, the extermination of locusts, or any other similar plague."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is alleged in the information and was proved on the trial that the Bureau of Agriculture had ordered a quarantine of the carabaos at the time and place mentioned; that the quarantine had been executed and completed and the animals actually segregated and confined; that the accused, in violation of such quarantine and of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, duly promulgated, broke the quarantine, removed the animals and used them in the ordinary work of his plantation. We consider these acts a plain violation of the article of the Penal Code above quoted. The fact that the information in its preamble charged a violation of Act No. 1760 does not prevent us from finding the accused guilty of a violation of an article of the Penal Code. The complaint opens as follows: "The undersigned accuses Adriano Panlilio of a violation of Act No. 1760, committed as follows:" Then follows the body of the information already quoted in this opinion. We would not permit an accused to be convicted under one Act when he is charged with the violation of another, if the change from one statute to another involved a change of the theory of the trial or required of the defendant a different defense or surprised him in any other way. The allegations required under Act No. 1760 include those required under article 581. The accused could have defended himself in no different manner if he had been expressly charged with a violation of article 581.

In the case of United States v. Paua (6 Phil. Rep., 740), the information stating the facts upon which the charge was founded terminated with this expression: "In violation of section 315 of Act No. 355 of the Philippine Commission. in effect on the 6th of February, 1902."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the resolution of this case the Supreme Court found that the facts set forth in the information and proved on the trial did not constitute a violation of section 315 of Act No. 355 as alleged in the information, but did constitute a violation of article 387 in connection with article 383 of the Penal Code, and accordingly convicted the accused under those articles and sentenced him to the corresponding penalty.

In that case the court said: "The foregoing facts, duly established as they were by the testimony of credible witnesses who heard and saw everything that occurred, show beyond peradventure of doubt that the crime of attempted bribery, as defined in article 387, in connection with article 383 of the Penal Code, has been committed, it being immaterial whether it is alleged in the complaint that section 315 of Act No. 355 of the Philippine Commission was violated by the defendant, as the same recites facts and circumstances sufficient to constitute the crime of bribery as defined and punished in the aforesaid articles of the Penal Code." (U. S. v. Lim San, 17 Phil. Rep., 273; U. S. v. Jeffrey, 15 Phil. Rep., 391; U. S. v. Guzman, 26 Phil. Rep., 22.)

The accused is accordingly convicted of a violation of article 581, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, and is sentenced to pay a fine of seventy pesetas (P14) and censure, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs of this appeal. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., dissents.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7945 December 1, 1914 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 9259 December 1, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PATOTO

    028 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. 8894 December 2, 1914 - MARIANO PERFECTO v. FULGENCIO CONTRERAS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 8976 December 2, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. NARCISO ALEGRE, ET AL.

    028 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10149 December 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN AGUAS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 9003 December 3, 1914 - LUIS RIVAYA v. FELIX SAMSON RAFAEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    028 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 9700 December 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO MANABAT, ET AL.

    028 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 9951 December 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. A. A. ADDISON

    028 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 9188 December 4, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ENGRACIO ORENSE

    028 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 9287 December 4, 1914 - LEON JUDA v. E. O. CLAYTON, ET AL.

    028 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 9417 December 4, 1914 - PEDRO MARTINEZ v. ANTONINO RAMOS, ET AL.

    028 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 9853 December 4, 1914 - CHUA YENG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    028 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 9504 December 5, 1914 - JUAN POIZAT v. GEORGE MORGAN, ET AL.

    028 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 9726 December 8, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CARSON TAYLOR

    028 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 9876 December 8, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO PANLILIO

    028 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 9408 December 10, 1914 - DEMETRIA CACHO v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

    028 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 9019 December 11, 1914 - UNITED STATED v. PABLO PIZARRO

    027 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 8797 December 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX RUBIN

    028 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 9372 December 15, 1914 - JULIA TUASON v. FAUSTO RAYMUNDO

    028 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 9677 December 15, 1914 - SANTOS CARTAGENO v. ISAIAS LIJAUCO, ET AL.

    028 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 8844 December 16, 1914 - FERNANDO MAULINI, ET AL. v. ANTONIO G. SERRANO

    028 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 8415 December 18, 1914 - GEORGE C. SELLNER v. JOSE GONZALEZ

    027 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 8942 December 19, 1914 - TEOFILO R. TORRALBA, ET AL. v. TOMAS DEJAN, ET AL.

    028 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 9991 December 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN MAGHIRANG, ET AL.

    028 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 10083 December 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SERGIO VILLACRUCES

    028 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. 9049 December 20, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BEN RICE

    027 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 8933 December 22, 1914 - NICOLAS GATDULA v. SIMPLICIO SANTOS, ET AL

    029 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9308 December 23, 1914 - JUAN BERNARDO v. M. B. LEGASPI

    029 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 10037 December 23, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIM0 MALLARI

    029 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 8320 December 24, 1914 - EPITACIO AGUSTIN v. PEDRO MONTANO

    027 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8947 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. DY LUCHIAT

    027 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 7747 December 24, 1914 - SEVERO GOROSPE, ET AL v. ANTONIO ILAYAT

    029 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 7847 December 24, 1914 - BUENAVENTURA DANCEL v. MAMERTO DANCEL, ET AL.

    029 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 8539 December 24, 1914 - MARIA DEL CONSUELO FELISA ROXAS Y CHUIDIAN v. RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    029 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 9225 December 24, 1914 - JULIANA SOLANO, ET AL. v. VICENTA SALVILLA, ET AL.

    029 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9337 December 24, 1914 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. CITY OF MANILA

    029 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9369 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO ALBAO

    029 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. 9405 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ADEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    029 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 9582 December 24, 1914 - IRENE CALAMPIANO v. EULALIO TOLENTINO

    029 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 9878 December 24, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK TUPASI MOLINA

    029 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 9058 December 29, 1914 - JULIO ALAGAR v. FRANCISCO PIO DE RODA

    029 Phil 129