The proceedings in this cause were commenced and prosecuted against Lazaro H. Gonzalez through a complaint filed by the provincial fiscal of Batangas, in the Court of First Instance of the said province,  on September 25, 1913, and drawn up in the following language:

The undersigned provincial fiscal charges Lazaro H. Gonzales with the crime of 'selling meat injurious to the public health,' committed as follows:

"In or about October, 1912, in the municipality of Tuy, Batangas, of the district of this Court of First Instance, the accused  did,  maliciously, and criminally, sell  for public consumption putrid beef; with violation of article 341 of the Penal Code."

The accused pleaded not  guilty, and after trial and the introduction of evidence  his counsel filed a motion praying the court to set aside all the proceedings had and, if the court deemed proper, that a new cause be instituted for violation  of Act No. 1655 of the Philippine Commission, to wit, that known by the title of "Pure Food and Drugs Act," on the ground that article 341 of the Penal Code, which the complaint  charged had been  violated by  defendant,  was repealed by the said Act and by Act No. 1760 of the same Commission.  The court overruled this motion on October 14, 1913, and on January 2, 1914, rendered the following judgment:

"The court is thoroughly convinced that the crime of 'the sale of meat necessarily injurious to health,' alleged  in the complaint and provided for and punished by article 341 of the Penal Code, has been committed, and that the herein defendant, Lazaro H. Gonzalez, is, beyond all reasonable doubt, guilty of the said crime, as the sole principal therein, inasmuch as he sold, in the town of the municipality of Tuy, Batangas, of which he was then the municipal vice-president, the decomposed meat of a bull that died from the bite of a snake, thereby causing several persons who ate  of the said meat to be afflicted with intestinal disorders a sale which defendant made in spite of the warning given him by the sanitary inspector of the said  municipality that he should bury the said meat and not sell it for public consumption.  Defendant's excuse, to the effect that he was authorized by the said sanitary inspector to sell the meat here in question, if, in defendant's judgment, it was good, is not worth taking into consideration, not only because it is not supported by the fact , bat also because the evidence of record shows the crime charged to have been proven.

"The commission of the crime here prosecuted was unattended by any generic circumstance whatever modifying the criminal liability incurred by the defendant, Lazaro H.  Gonzalez, upon whom, consequently, the penalty fixed by law  must be imposed in its medium degree.

"Therefore, pursuant to the aforecited article,  the court should and hereby does sentence the herein  defendant, Lazaro H. Gonzalez, to the penalty of ten months and one day of prision correctional, to the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of P65, with twenty-six days' subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,  and to pay the costs. So  ordered."

Defendant appealed from this judgment  and his counsel alleges here that the trial judge erred (1) in sentencing defendant to ten months and one day of prision correctional, with the accessories of the law and a fine of P65, pursuant to article 341  of the Penal Code; and (2) in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the action and quash the proceedings on the ground that article 341 of the  Penal Code was repealed by a later and special Act of the Philippine Commission.

It was proven at trial and not denied by defendant, that he was the owner of a bovine work animal in the pueblo of Tuy, Province of Batangas, which was in charge of one of his tenants named Eleuterio Caubalejo; that the said animal died on Thursday morning, October 17,1912; that defendant cut it up and sold the meat to the public on the afternoon of this same day and continued to sell it on the following day, the 18th, without having obtained,  until the latter date, the required  permit for the purpose from  the municipal treasurer.  It was likewise proven, although some of the witnesses for  the defense testified to the contrary, that several persons who had bought a part of said meat suffered from pains in the stomach and intestinal disorders.  It was also observed that when the meat was cooked it emitted a bad odor.

Eleuterio Caubalejo, a tenant of  the defendant and witness for the defense, testified  that the  animal was already dead when, on the 17th of October, he found it in the camarin where he had left it the previous evening in good health and showing no signs  of weakness, notwithstanding that he had worked it in the  field that same  afternoon; and that he noticed  that the muzzle of  the dead beast was inflamed by  what he supposed was the bite of a  poisonous  snake which he had seen in the building at noon and again afterwards, though he did not  succeed in killing it.  Defendant in his own behalf, testified that although his tenant, Caubalejo, had been unable exactly to determine the cause of the animal's death, he had told defendant that he  saw that its  muzzle  was inflamed;  and  that  before the animal was cut up, witness himself had seen the inflammation.  Defend ant also  admitted the posibility of the animal's having died from some disease.

Defendant, however, as aforestated, had  the animal cut up and its meat sold to the public, heedless of the warning the sanitary inspector of the pueblo gave him that same morning of the 17th of October, that that meat should not be eaten and that defendant should have the animal buried.

The lower court, therefore, did not err in holding in the judgment appealed from that defendant is guilty,  as a principal, of the crime provided for and punished  by article 341 of the  Penal Code, although, as its commission was not attended by any generic circumstance modifying that liability, and the trial court so held, the penalty that should be imposed upon defendant is not that of ten months and one day of prision correccional, ordered in the said judgment and comprised within the medium degree of the penalty specified in the aforementioned article, but that of one year  and one day of like imprisonment the penalty comprised within the medium degree.

Whether or not said article 341 of the Penal Code was repealed by Act No. 1655 of the Philippine Commission, is the question which, in the second  place, has been raised by the  defense before this court.  Defendant's counsel in maintaining the affirmative  alleged in  his brief that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the case And set aside all the proceedings had therein.

It is unquestionable that  the provisions contained  in Chapter II, Title V, Book II of the  Penal Code, dealing with  offenses against public health, among  which  is found said article 341, and those of Act No.  1655 of the Philippine Commission, have for their  object the protection of the public health;  but, while  all these provisions are compatible among themselves in so far as regards their respective purposes, those of some of the  articles in the said chapter of the Penal Code, especially the aforementioned article 341, have a more  limited scope  and a more circumscribed sphere of action than those of Act No. 1655. The former are, or may  properly  be considered as, of a local character, while the latter, though  they still  retain the same character, tend to produce effects of a general nature, that is, outside  of the locality or of the territory for the well-being and the benefit of  which they were especially enacted.

The purpose of Act No. 1655,  as set forth in its title, is to prevent,  not only  the manufacture and sale of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious  foods, drugs, medicines,  and liquors, but also the importation of such  foods, drugs, medicines, etc., and to regulate  traffic therein.  To arrive at a knowledge  of  the character of this Act, one needs but to read carefully each and all of its provisions and the rules and regulations prescribed for its application.

Section 1 of said Act provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within the Philippine Islands any article  of food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act; and section 2 prohibits the introduction into the Philippine Islands from the United States or from any foreign country, or the shipment  to the United States or to  any foreign country from the Philippine  Islands, of any such article of food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded.  In those general terms said law defines the acts it was deemed necessary to prevent, in order to protect public health. In the first of said  sections, no reference whatever is made to the sale of decomposed articles, whether for food  or not; it merely provides against the manufacture and misbranding of the articles of food or drugs therein mentioned  and fixes the penalty to be imposed  upon  those  who commit such  acts.  Section 2, after  making the prohibition  aforecited, adds:

"*  *  *  and any person who shall ship or deliver for shipment from the Philippine Islands  to the United States or to  a foreign country, or who shall receive in the Philippine Islands from the United States or from any foreign country, and having  so  received, shall deliver, in original unbroken packages, for pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver to any other person, any such article so adulterated or misbranded  *  *  *  shall be punished for the first offense by a fine not to exceed four hundred pesos, and for each subsequent offense he shall be punished by a fine not to exceed six hundred pesos, or by imprisonment  not to exceed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court."

It is clearly seen that the acts which the law punishes by this section 2 are,  in the first place, the introduction or importation into the Islands of the aforementioned articles and drugs  and  their shipment and exportation  from these Islands to the United, States or to any foreign country; in the second  place, the various acts which are or may be connected with  such  importation and exportation, like  that of receiving  said articles or  drugs,  in  original unbroken packages, for pay or  otherwise,  or  in offering to deliver them to any other person, in selling them or offering them for sale in  the Philippine Islands, or  in  exporting them or offering to export  them to the United States  or to any foreign country.  Several of the succeeding sections  of the same Act contain provisions intended for the effective enforcement thereof with regard to the introduction into the Islands and the  exportation therefrom of  the  aforesaid articles  of food, drugs, etc.,  by  specifying the  procedure that must be observed for their examination, determination and classification, by  designating the office  which must do the technical work involved, and the Government officials whose duty it shall be to prescribe uniform rules and  regulations for the enforcement of said provisions among which officials the first is the Insular Collector of Customs, whose powers and  duties relate to all matters concerning the exportation from and importation into the islands of merchandise and all classes of articles  and specifying the principal action which devolves upon  said Collector of Customs in any proceedings resulting from violations of the law, until the moment these latter shall have passed within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

It is true, as stated in the brief  of counsel for defendant, that it is said in section 6 of said Act that the term "food," as used therein, shall include all  articles of  food, drink, confectionery,  or condiment used by  man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compounded; and that section 7  states that, for the purposes of this Act, in the case of food, an article shall be deemed to be adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of  a filthy, decomposed, or putrid animal  or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food,  whether manufactured or not, or if it is the  product of a  diseased  animal, or one that has died otherwise  than by  slaughter.  From the  provisions contained in said sections 1 and 2, the defense argues that the facts  as presented by the prosecution in this case fall entirely within the purview of the Act in question.

Such a conclusion, however, is neither correct nor sustainable, for,  in the first of those two sections, the word "food" is defined and  its scope explained, and the second  defines what shall be considered  an article of food or adulterated food for  the purposes of said Act, that is, in relation to the purposes sought therein and to all its provisions.  Both these sections are no more than parts of the same Act, the other parts of which do not alter or modify their provisions, but, on the  contrary, are in harmony and agreement with them.

Furthermore, both said Act No.  1655 and the rules prescribed for its enforcement  refer to exportation and importation, to commerce, to traffic, to merchants and dealers, and to a particular procedure  related to these concepts, and, as the Solicitor-General has well said, undoubtedly refer to dealings in products which  have entered or may enter into interstate commerce, and leave to interior  police regulations the matter of local  business in local unmanufactured products, this perhaps being the reason, as the Solicitor-General says in his brief, why, with respect to purely local products, the law only prohibits the  manufacture thereof, because it is this that  may introduce articles into interstate commerce. In support  of all the  foregoing there is,  besides, the last section, No. 14  of said  Act No. 1655, which clearly explains the purpose of this law and what are the acts that affect public health that it punishes.  It reads:

"That any article, the importation, offer, sale, transportation, or use of which is prohibited or restricted by this Act, which is in transit to the Philippine Islands at the time of the passage of this Act, shall not be subject  to the fines, penalties, or forfeitures herein prescribed, but may, under rules  and regulations to be prescribed by the  Insular Collector of Customs, and approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice, be returned to the  port  from which it was shipped."

Finally, as regards Act No. 1760 of the Philippine Commission, also cited by defendant's counsel as having repealed article 341 of the Penal Code, the sole provision therein contained which is in any way related to the matter in question, is that found in section 6,  whereby the  Director of Agriculture is authorized "to cooperate  with provincial  and municipal boards  *  *   *   in the establishment and maintenance of municipal slaughterhouse and  milk-inspection systems, the object of which shall be to prevent the slaughter and sale of animals having diseases or injuries of such a nature as to render the meats and other food products derived from them dangerous  or unwholesome for  human food."  But, as it is seen, this provision  is in no wise contrary to that of said  article 341 of the Penal Code.  It is, on the contrary, in harmony with it, inasmuch as  it tends to make it difficult or  impossible to sell decomposed substances which, as stated in  said article, are  necessarily injurious to health.

In conclusion: Act No. 1655 does not prohibit nor punish acts injurious to public health which consist in the sale in municipalities and other localities of these Islands of decomposed articles of food, or the meat of  dead animals or animals slaughtered for public consumption which is necessarily injurious to health; and as such acts are prohibited  and punished by said article 341 of the Penal Code, it is evident that that part of this article  referred  to in the complaint filed in the present case and which has brought about defendant's prosecution and conviction, was not repealed either by Act No. 1655 or by Act No. 1760 of the Philippine Commission.  The trial  court,  therefore,  committed  no error in denying defendant's motion  to  dismiss the case and set aside the proceedings had therein, and  in sentencing defendant in conformity with the provisions  of said article 341 of the Penal Code.

For the foregoing reasons, with a modification  of the penalty  imposed upon the  defendant, which  shall be one year and one day of prision correccional, the judgment appealed from as so modified is affirmed in  all other respects, with the costs against the appellant.  So ordered .

Arellano, C.  J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.