Penalty for cruelty to animals
DearPAO, I was recently told by the security guard of an abandoned lot being used as a parking space that one of the dogs living there was poisoned. The security guard told me that a government admitted to him that he fed the dog rice laced with “vet sin ”( mono sodium glutamate ), because the dog was urinating on the tires of his car. We found out that the dog was in a really bad condition from ingesting the vet sin. As an animal lover, I found the act of the government employee to be cruel and detestable. My friends were wondering government employee for his cruelty to the dog. We are aware that there is a law on animal welfare and are wondering if it is applicable to this case. Emil Dear Emil,
The act of poisoning an animal is a blatant form of animal cruelty punishable under Republic Act 8484, known as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, as amended by Republic Act 10631. This is the law that primarily promotes and protects the welfare of animals and punishes those who abuse and maltreat them. According to the amended Animal Welfare Act:
“SECTION 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide adequate care, subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal Welfare. xxx” ( Emphasis supplied) Feeding a dog with food laced with “vetsin” to harm and cause pain or death is a form of torture and maltreatment, which is precisely what the law penalizes. As such, it is only proper to file a criminal case against the person behind the poisoning of the dog.
The person proven guilty of maltreatment to animals in violation of the law is punishable with a penalty depending on the resulting injury to maltreated animal. Section 9 of the amended Animal Welfare Act imposes a monetary fine of P30,000 to P100,000 and/ or imprisonment with a period ranging from six months to two years depending on the extent of injury to the animal.
But since you mentioned that the perpetrator in the poisoning of the dog was a government employee, it is important to know that the law imposes a heavier penalty on such individuals. The law states that:
“However, regardless of the resulting condition to the animals, the penalty of two ( 2) years and one ( 1) day to three ( 3) years ad/ or a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty thousand pesos ( P250,000.00) shall be imposed if the offense is committed by any of the following: ( 1) a syndicate; ( 2) an offender who makes business out of cruelty to an animal; ( 3) a public officer or employee; or ( 4) where at least three ( 3) animals are involved.
In any of the foregoing situations, the offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and the inability to pay the fine” ( Section 9, Republic Act 8484, as amended by Republic Act 10631. Emphasis supplied).
With this, the government employee who poisoned the dog is bound to receive a longer prison term and heftier fine should he be found guilty of maltreating a dog in violation of the amended Animal Welfare Act.
We find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Thus, the opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.