Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 219 views

    US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Uploaded by

    Boy Omar Garangan Datudacula
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Adriano Panlilio for violating a quarantine order issued by the Director of Agriculture. While the Director was authorized to issue quarantine orders, the statute (Act No. 1760) did not make it a penal offense to violate those administrative orders. Specifically, the statute prohibited knowingly transporting diseased animals or exposed animals without a certificate, but did not prohibit or penalize violating the Director's quarantine orders. As the defendant's actions did not violate the specific prohibitions in the statute, the Court held he could not be convicted under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Uploaded by

    Boy Omar Garangan Datudacula
    219 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Adriano Panlilio for violating a quarantine order issued by the Director of Agriculture. While the Director was authorized to issue quarantine orders, the statute (Act No. 1760) did not make it a penal offense to violate those administrative orders. Specifically, the statute prohibited knowingly transporting diseased animals or exposed animals without a certificate, but did not prohibit or penalize violating the Director's quarantine orders. As the defendant's actions did not violate the specific prohibitions in the statute, the Court held he could not be convicted under the law.

    Original Description:

    16. US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Original Title

    16. US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Adriano Panlilio for violating a quarantine order issued by the Director of Agriculture. While the Director was authorized to issue quarantine orders, the statute (Act No. 1760) did not make it a penal offense to violate those administrative orders. Specifically, the statute prohibited knowingly transporting diseased animals or exposed animals without a certificate, but did not prohibit or penalize violating the Director's quarantine orders. As the defendant's actions did not violate the specific prohibitions in the statute, the Court held he could not be convicted under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    219 views2 pages

    US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Uploaded by

    Boy Omar Garangan Datudacula
    The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Adriano Panlilio for violating a quarantine order issued by the Director of Agriculture. While the Director was authorized to issue quarantine orders, the statute (Act No. 1760) did not make it a penal offense to violate those administrative orders. Specifically, the statute prohibited knowingly transporting diseased animals or exposed animals without a certificate, but did not prohibit or penalize violating the Director's quarantine orders. As the defendant's actions did not violate the specific prohibitions in the statute, the Court held he could not be convicted under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No.

    L-9876 December 8, 1914)

    Doctrine:
    The orders, rules, and regulations of an administrative officers or body issued in pursuance of the authority
    conferred by a statute, while they have, in a sense, the force of law, are not statutes and particularly not penal
    statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal offense not a penal offense unless the statute itself
    somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it.

    Facts:

    This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI 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.

    Act No. 1760 prohibits and pronounces the following acts of any person, firm or corporation as unlawful:
    • Sec. 3- 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;
    • Sec. 4- 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; and
    • Sec.5-To transport in any form without a certificate issued by authority of the Director of Agriculture
    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.

    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.
    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.
    The accused was convicted of violation of Act 1760 relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from
    dangerous communicable or contagious diseases. 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.

    Issue:
    Whether the accused may be convicted for violation of the quarantine order issued by the Director of Agriculture,
    assuming there was a violation.

    Held:
    No. The court held that 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. 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 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." 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.

    You might also like