UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO BOTOR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT

United States versus Botor

The Case

This is the case of the United States against Francisco Botor, decided by the Supreme Court in March 1908. The Government charged Botor with the crime then known as atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad — an outrage or attack against agents of the authority — committed in the municipality of Minalabag, in the Province of Ambos Camarines, on or about the fourteenth of April 1906. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it shows how a charge of attacking the authorities may be resolved into the lesser, but still punishable, offense of resisting the authorities. Second, it is a compact illustration of the Supreme Court's deference to the trial court's findings of fact when the record fully supports them.

Procedural History

Botor was charged before the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines with the crime of atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad. He was duly tried, and the trial court found him guilty — not of the crime as charged, but of the crime of resisting the authorities. The Court of First Instance sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of two months of arresto mayor, to pay a fine of 325 pesetas and the costs, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with Article 252 of the Penal Code. From that sentence Botor appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the record and affirmed the judgment of the court below, with costs.

Facts

On or about the fourteenth of April 1906, in the municipality of Minalabag, Province of Ambos Camarines, Francisco Botor was alleged to have committed an outrage against agents of the authority. On that allegation the Government brought him before the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines.

The defendant was duly tried. The trial court found that the proof established, not the graver charge of atentado, but the crime of resisting the authorities, and convicted him of that offense.

The Court of First Instance imposed two months of arresto mayor, a fine of 325 pesetas, and the costs, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency under Article 252 of the Penal Code. Botor appealed, and the Supreme Court, after examining the record, found that the evidence fully justified the findings of fact and the conclusions of the court below.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence sustained the conviction of the defendant for resisting the authorities.
• Whether or not the findings of fact and conclusions of the trial court should be affirmed on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 252 of the Penal Code, on subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, provides:

In case of insolvency, the culprit shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of Article 252 of the Penal Code.

The trial court applied this provision when it fixed the subsidiary imprisonment that would follow if the defendant could not pay the fine, and the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence as imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence fully justified the conviction. The defendant was charged with atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad, but the trial court found him guilty of the crime of resisting the authorities, and the Supreme Court sustained that result.

On the second issue, the Court held that an examination of the record brought to it fully justified the findings of fact and the conclusions of the court below. Speaking through Justice Johnson, the Court stated:

An examination of the record brought to this court fully justifies the findings of fact and the conclusions of the court below.

Accordingly, the sentence of the lower court was affirmed, with costs.

Doctrine

Three rules a Bar candidate should retain. First, a charge of atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad — an outrage against agents of the authority — may be resolved by the trial court into the lesser offense of resisting the authorities where the proof so warrants, and the conviction for the lesser offense will stand on appeal. Second, the findings of fact and conclusions of the trial court will be affirmed where an examination of the record fully justifies them; the appellate Court does not disturb them when the evidence supports them. Third, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency is imposed in accordance with Article 252 of the Penal Code, as the trial court did when it fixed the sentence of two months of arresto mayor, a fine of 325 pesetas, and the costs.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of the lower court convicting Francisco Botor of resisting the authorities, with costs.

Remember This

The one line worth memorizing: an examination of the record that fully justifies the findings of fact and the conclusions of the court below means affirmance, with costs. Examiners use this case to test the rule that a charge of atentado contra los agentes de la autoridad may be resolved into the lesser offense of resisting the authorities, and that the trial court's findings will not be disturbed when the record supports them.