Full Download Test Bank Get the Latest Study Materials at testbankfan.

com

Differential Equations with Boundary Value

Problems 8th Edition Zill Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/differential-equations-with-
boundary-value-problems-8th-edition-zill-test-bank/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download More Test Banks for All Subjects at https://testbankfan.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Differential Equations with Boundary Value Problems 8th

Edition Zill Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/differential-equations-with-boundary-
value-problems-8th-edition-zill-solutions-manual/

testbankfan.com

Differential Equations with Boundary Value Problems 9th

Edition Zill Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/differential-equations-with-boundary-
value-problems-9th-edition-zill-test-bank/

testbankfan.com

Differential Equations with Boundary Value Problems 9th

Edition Zill Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/differential-equations-with-boundary-
value-problems-9th-edition-zill-solutions-manual/

testbankfan.com

Scientific American Environmental Science For A Changing

World 3rd Edition Karr Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/scientific-american-environmental-
science-for-a-changing-world-3rd-edition-karr-test-bank/

testbankfan.com
Brooks Cole Empowerment Series Becoming an Effective
Policy Advocate 7th Edition Jansson Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/brooks-cole-empowerment-series-
becoming-an-effective-policy-advocate-7th-edition-jansson-test-bank/

testbankfan.com

Understanding the Australian Health Care System 3rd

Edition Willis Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/understanding-the-australian-health-
care-system-3rd-edition-willis-test-bank/

testbankfan.com

Management Asia Pacific 6th Edition Schermerhorn Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/management-asia-pacific-6th-edition-
schermerhorn-test-bank/

testbankfan.com

Power Electronics 1st Edition Hart Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/power-electronics-1st-edition-hart-
solutions-manual/

testbankfan.com

Film Art An Introduction 11th Edition Bordwell Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/film-art-an-introduction-11th-edition-
bordwell-test-bank/

testbankfan.com
Laboratory Manual for Anatomy and Physiology 6th Edition
Marieb Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/laboratory-manual-for-anatomy-and-
physiology-6th-edition-marieb-solutions-manual/

testbankfan.com
Chapter 09 Form C: NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS OF ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL
EQUATIONS

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. When entering the number into a three digit base ten calculator, the actual value entered
is
Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ANS: B PTS: 1

2. When entering the number into a three digit base ten calculator, the round-off error is
Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ANS: C PTS: 1

3. Euler’s formula for solving is

Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
d.

e.

ANS: C PTS: 1

4. The solution of , using Euler’s method with is

Select the correct answer.

a. 1.01
 b. 1.1
c. 1.11
d. 1.21
e. 1.22
ANS: D PTS: 1

5. In the previous problem, the local truncation error in is

Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e. unknown
ANS: C PTS: 1

6. The solution of , using the improved Euler’s method with is

Select the correct answer.

a. 1.22125
b. 1.210625
c. 1.226525
d. 1.21525
e. 1.221025
ANS: E PTS: 1

7. The local truncation error for the improved Euler's method is

Select the correct answer.

a. unknown
b.
c.

d.

e.

ANS: D PTS: 1

8. Euler's method is what type of Runge-Kutta method?

Select the correct answer.

a. first order
b. second order
c. third order
 d. fourth order
e. It is not a Runge-Kutta method
ANS: A PTS: 1

9. A popular second order Runge-Kutta method for the solution of is

Select the correct answer.

a.

b.
c.
d.
e. none of the above
ANS: D PTS: 1

10. Using the method from the previous problem, the solution of with
is
Select the correct answer.

a. 1.2
b. 1.21
c. 1.214
d. 1.22
e. 1.24
ANS: D PTS: 1

11. The most popular fourth order Runge-Kutta method for the solution of
is
Select the correct answer.

a.

b.
 c.

d.

e.

ANS: A PTS: 1

12. Using the method from the previous problem, the solution of with
is
Select the correct answer.

a. 1.24
b. 1.241
c. 1.214
d. 1.2214
e. 1.224
ANS: D PTS: 1

13. The Adams-Bashforth formula for finding the solution of is

Select the correct answer.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. none of the above

 ANS: B PTS: 1

14. Using the value of from the previous problem, the Adams-Moulton corrector value for
the solution of is
Select the correct answer.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e. none of the above

ANS: C PTS: 1

15. Using the method from the previous two problems, using the values
the solution of with
is
Select the correct answer.

a. 1.4919
b. 1.4967
c. 1.4978
d. 1.5003
e. none of the above
ANS: A PTS: 1

16. The Euler formula for solving the system is

Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e. none of the above
ANS: A PTS: 1

17. The problem can be written as a system of two equations as

follows.
Select the correct answer.

a.
b.
c.
 d.
e.

ANS: E PTS: 1

18. Using Euler's method on the previous problem and using a value of , the solution for
is
Select the correct answer.

a. 0.11
b. 0.2
c. 0.21
d. 0.22
e. 0.221
ANS: B PTS: 1

19. The fourth order Runge-Kutta method for solving

is
Select the correct answer.

a.

b.
 c.

d.

e.

ANS: E PTS: 1

20. The solution of for , using the Runge-Kutta method of

order four, and using , is
Select the correct answer.

a. 0.0909
b. 0.09999
c. 0.09099
d. 0.09899
e. 0.08899
ANS: B PTS: 1
Other documents randomly have
different content
the administration of justice, he was held to account by the visiting oidor
who was dispatched at regular intervals for the inspection of the provinces
—and for the judicial scrutiny of the provincial courts. In cases of notorious
injustice special pesquisidores, usually oidores, were sent at once for the
correction of the abuse in question, at the expense of the offending
officials.34 These, if found guilty of wilful disobedience, were punished in
accordance with the gravity of their offenses. The audiencia had appellate
jurisdiction in these cases.35 The visiting oidores imposed fines in
accordance with a tariff which had been formulated by the audiencia and
approved by the Council of the Indies.36 All fines levied by the audiencia,
either upon officials or individuals could be remitted by the president with
the consent of the acuerdo.37

It was the policy of the government to give the audiencia final jurisdiction
in as many cases as possible. It was desirable to endow the colonial
tribunals and authorities with sufficient power to make them worthy of
respect. At the same time it was necessary to relieve the Council of the
Indies of the duty of hearing the vast number of individual suits which
would inevitably come to it if that tribunal were made too accessible. The
Council was occupied with appeals in government and justice from all of
Spain’s colonies. It has been noted that the limit of value of cases which
could be appealed from the audiencia to the Council of the Indies was
raised in 1620 from 200 to 6000 pesos. This would seem to indicate a
growing tendency to confine suits involving individuals to the colonial
tribunals, thus increasing the importance of the audiencias, and at the same
time making the Council of the Indies more exclusively a tribunal of
administration. This change, however, was never completely effected,
despite the various expedients adopted to discourage the appeal of
individual cases. Persons appealing were obliged to guarantee the expenses
of suit. The great cost, the delays, and the distance altogether made appeal
difficult. Appeals of longer standing than two years were not received from
the Philippines in the Council of the Indies.38 An investigation of the
records shows that most of the cases appealed to the Council of the Indies
involved administrative law in some form, having to do either with the
prosecution of officials, their removal from office, the prosecution of
bondsmen, residencias, conflicts of jurisdiction, or with appeals from the
decision of the audiencia in commercial and ecclesiastical matters.

The gradual extension of the jurisdiction of the audiencia over encomiendas

may be cited as an example of the changes in the authority of the tribunal
and in its relation to the Council of the Indies. The first important
legislation in regulation of the encomienda was the celebrated law of
Malines, promulgated in that city by Charles V, on October 20, 1545, and
enunciated at successive dates until 1610. The law prescribed the course
which was to be pursued by the audiencia in suits between individuals
relative to encomiendas or the Indians thereon. In these contentions the
Council of the Indies and not the audiencia was the final arbiter. The duty of
the latter tribunal was to collect evidence in these cases, taking the
testimony of witnesses for both sides and remitting all papers, sealed, to the
Council of the Indies. The council, on consideration of the evidence,
rendered the final decision. The audiencia had to conclude its part of the
investigation and file its report within a period of three months. This time
limit was extended to six months in 1554. The purpose of this law was to
guarantee justice in the assignment and retention of encomiendas by
removing them from the control of the audiencias, whose magistrates, as
experience had proved, often allowed themselves to be influenced by local
prejudices. Encomiendas were to be assigned by the king, in theory at least,
and no other authority save the monarch and his council could exercise
jurisdiction over them.39

The audiencia was, however, authorized to act as the protector of persons

holding Indians on encomiendas, to see that they were not unjustly deprived
of or wrongfully disturbed in their holdings. In case a person were thus
deprived of his Indians, the audiencia was empowered to restore conditions
to their former state. If the aggressor persisted, or cared to contest the right
of his opponent to the Indians in question, the audiencia was ordered to
observe the law of Malines, collecting all the evidence in the case, and
forwarding it to the Council of the Indies for final decision. The frequency
of litigation, however, and the vast number of unimportant cases which
arose under the provisions of the law of Malines came to demand too much
of the time and attention of the Council of the Indies, thereby causing many
delays in suits involving encomiendas. In order to remedy this defect, Philip
III, on April 17, 1609, conferred on the audiencia jurisdiction over all cases
involving encomiendas, repartimientos,40 tributes, and despoliations of
Indians up to the value of a thousand ducats.41 Cases involving a greater
value were still to be settled in conformity with the law of Malines. Finally,
in 1624 it was ordered that in suits which did not involve more than three
Indians and in cases wherein the costs of litigation exceeded the amount in
dispute, the decree of the governor should prevail. For obvious reasons, the
audiencia could not concern itself with such cases, but when the value of
the Indians justified the attention of the tribunal, its decisions were final,
taking precedence over those of the governor.42 This, then, was the final
status of the jurisdiction of the audiencia over encomiendas as set forth in
the laws of the Indies. In the Philippines the authority of the tribunal in
regard to them was neither executive nor legislative, except in such cases
and on such occasions as we shall refer to later. The judicial authority of the
Audiencia of Manila over encomiendas was indisputable.

Having indicated the general basis upon which the authority of the
audiencia rested, we may more precisely define its jurisdiction by reviewing
a few of the most characteristic cases which were tried in the tribunal in
accordance with the laws already discussed. The statement has been made
that at the time of its establishment the audiencia was needed as a court of
justice and that it was removed in 1589 for political reasons rather than
because of the inadequacy or failure of the institution as a tribunal of
justice. In the preceding chapter we saw that the audiencia was designed to
relieve the executive of judicial duties, such as the trial of cases appealed
from the alcaldes mayores of the provinces and the alcaldes ordinarios of
the city. These functions, up to the time of the establishment of the
audiencia, had been exercised by the governor. This had resulted in
favoritism and in a perversion of justice to the private ends of the governor
and of his friends. Perhaps the chief evil under the system had proceeded
from the governor’s double jurisdiction, as both executive and judge, over
cases involving encomiendas and encomenderos. The governor assigned
encomiendas in the name of the king, and he was also judge with final
jurisdiction over all suits involving them, the law of Malines being
impossible of execution in the Philippines before the establishment of the
audiencia, and after its withdrawal in 1589.43

The same was true in regard to commercial cases, and complaints were ever
arising against the governor’s high-handed proceedings in the allotment of
cargo space on the galleons to his friends, and his monopolization of the
best Chinese goods that came to Manila. The governor, as in the assignment
of encomiendas, enjoyed an undue advantage in these matters, for at the
same time that he was the executive with the power of bestowing these
favors, he was the sole judge in all contentions which arose regarding
commerce. It was therefore distinctly in the interests of justice that a
supreme court should be established, and it is easy to understand why those
who had profited by the absence of the audiencia should oppose its
restoration, and why others should take the opposite view.

Soon after the audiencia was abolished in 1589, arguments were presented
at court for its restoration. From the large number of petitions that were
presented, two, aside from those discussed in the preceding chapter, may be
cited here because they illustrate the disadvantages from a judicial point of
view of having the administration of justice in the hands of the governor,
with appeal to Mexico. Francisco de la Misa, factor of the treasury of
Manila, wrote a memorial to the king on May 31, 1595,44 referring to the
delay which had arisen in the trial of suits involving encomiendas: the
jurisdiction of the governor was not final; appeals had to be carried to the
Audiencia of Mexico and cases involving a thousand ducats or more had to
be taken from that tribunal to the Council of the Indies;45 this meant two
appeals and much delay. He mentioned certain cases which had been
pending two years, and showed that, because of the delay to which they had
been subjected in Mexico, it would be at least two years more before the
decisions could be returned. Misa said that conditions had reverted to the
state which had existed before the audiencia was established; a much larger
number of cases was awaiting trial than the governor and his lieutenant
could attempt to try. These difficulties were multiplied by the fact that there
was no fiscal, an officer whose services as legal adviser to the government
and as prosecuting attorney were indispensable.46
Misa petitioned for a reform of the law which had established the governor
as judge of ultimate recourse in cases involving one thousand pesos (ducats)
or less. He believed it advisable to reduce the limit of the value of cases
settled in the colony from one thousand to four hundred pesos and appeal
all those exceeding the latter sum to the Audiencia of Mexico. It would
result in a more equitable administration of justice, he stated, if the trial of
important cases were conducted in second instance before that tribunal.
This practice, though subject to great delay, would have the advantage of
guaranteeing the review of these cases by a competent and properly
qualified magistracy rather than by a biased and tyrannical executive. He
alleged that four hundred pesos in the Philippines meant as much as a
thousand elsewhere. Another suggestion advanced by Misa was that suits
and investigations involving real hacienda should be tried by competent
judges, rather than by the governor, whose own personal interest in the
cases was often too great to ensure fair trial. Another evil pointed out by
Misa, and a fairly typical one throughout the history of the colony, was the
delay and uncertainty of the residencia. This defect was particularly
apparent at this time because all cases of residencia had to be sent to
Mexico, since there was no tribunal in Manila with jurisdiction on appeal
over these official investigations. Misa described the plight of various
alcaldes mayores, corregidores, and other officials who had been
investigated and suspended from office, awaiting the outcome of the
residencia. There were no persons to take their places; as a result, the
suspended officials were without gainful employment, while their districts
and offices reverted to a state of lawlessness, barbarism and disorder,
without governor, judges, or incumbents. The governor had attempted to
remedy the trouble by making temporary appointments from among the
removed officials, but this he had no authority to do; moreover, the
reinstatement of officials whose conduct was under investigation was
subversive of the best interests of government and justice. The governor’s
action in these cases had raised a storm of protest in the colony, yet he was
forced to take these steps in preference to leaving the natives without
government and protection. Misa presented this picture of the state of
affairs in the colony to show the evil results of the absence from the
Philippines of a tribunal with authority to conduct residencias and to
provide offices.
While this series of complaints was not followed by an open advocacy of
the establishment of a royal audiencia in Manila, the defects which were
pointed out showed the desirability of putting an end to the governor’s
intervention in judicial matters. There can be no question but that the arrival
at court of such letters showed clearly the need of a tribunal at Manila for
the administration of justice.

Complaints were also directed against this state of affairs by Antonio de

Morga, lieutenant-governor of the Islands. This official argued that the
commonwealth required an audiencia in order to secure a more equitable
administration of justice.47 He called attention to the overcrowded docket
of the court over which he presided and emphasized the impossibility of the
satisfactory termination of the cases waiting to be tried. That the defects
referred to in these communications were appreciated at court is evidenced
by the cédula of May 26, 1595, which emphasized the necessity of
administering justice in the Philippines with “universal equality, mildness
and satisfaction.”48

Nevertheless the presence of a tribunal had the effect of encouraging the

inhabitants of the Islands to litigation. It has been said that there have been
more lawsuits in the Philippines than in any other country of the same size
and population, which remark probably would apply to any country where
the Spanish judicial system had lately obtained. This condition was no
doubt due to the fact that adequate facilities existed whereby the natives
could go to law. Lawyers and judges were ever unduly ready to encourage
and hear any suits which might arise if there were any way in which profit
might be derived therefrom. Pardo de Tavera, in discussing these phases of
the legal history of the Islands, states that the laws protected the native, but
at the same time they kept him in a state of perpetual tutelage. Judgments
were passed by native magistrates in suits between natives in the later days
of Spanish rule, but in general throughout the period of Spain’s domination
suits were prosecuted under the direction of a protector of the Indians in
case one party to a suit was a Spaniard, or when the rights of the natives
were in any way jeopardized or injured by a Spaniard. “In this manner
Spanish prestige was preserved, inasmuch as it was no longer an Indian
who asked for the punishment of one belonging to a superior race, but a
Spaniard who took up the Indian’s cause and conducted the suit against
another Spaniard.”49 Thus it may be seen that in Spain’s judicial system the
means were provided, in theory at least, whereby the meanest native could
obtain justice, not only among his fellows, but in cases to which members
of the superior Spanish race were parties.

The declared purpose of the whole system of legislation for the Indies was
the material and spiritual well-being of the Indians.50 The officials of the
government, the churchmen, and the encomenderos were especially charged
in their commissions and in official correspondence to make the protection
and welfare of the Indians their chief concern. Attention has just been
directed to the office of protector of the Indians. The fiscal, or one of his
assistants, attended to that duty in the Audiencia of Manila, while agents
(agentes fiscales) were especially commissioned by the fiscal to act in that
capacity in the provinces.51 We have also noted that the oidores were
charged with the duty of protecting the Indians when officiating as visitors
in the provinces. Such cases, also those involving decisions of corregidores
and alcaldes mayores by which the natives were dealt with unjustly, were
appealable, under certain circumstances, to the audiencia. These cases
commanded the immediate attention of the tribunal, to the exclusion of
other business.52 Among the vast number of cases at our disposal which
illustrate the jurisdiction of the tribunal over such matters, the following
may be selected as typical. On May 16, 1796, the fiscal brought a charge in
the audiencia against the governor, exposing the sufferings inflicted upon
the Indians of the barrio of Santa Ana by the corregidor of Tondo53 in
connection with the construction of a road. The audiencia refused to
consider the case in first instance, as the matter was not contentious, but it
recommended that the fiscal should make the charges before the governor
and have him render a decision upon the matter; if exception were taken to
his decision the case could be appealed to the audiencia. The oidores found
that they were without jurisdiction over the case in first instance and they
declared that their entertainment of the suit would be in violation of the
laws of the Indies.54 The fiscal appealed from the judgment of the
audiencia. The Council of the Indies, in a return communication dated May
13, 1798,55 approved the ruling of the audiencia, affirming that in cases of
the nature referred to, the fiscal, as protector of the Indians, should submit
testimony in behalf of the latter to the governor, who should consider
whether the Indians had been wronged and render his decision accordingly.
If exception were taken to the decision of the governor, the case could then
be appealed to the audiencia. While these appeals and this litigation were in
progress, the Indians were being subjected to repeated hardships.

This case is illustrative of the ineffectiveness of the system for the

administration of justice in Spain’s colonies. It had taken two years for this
appeal to be carried to Spain and receive the attention of the Council of the
Indies. The answer had yet to be returned, probably requiring at least a year
more for the return of the Vera Cruz and Acapulco galleons and for the
proper proceedings to be carried on in the Manila tribunal. It is questionable
whether the Indians in whose interests this was ultimately done ever
received any benefit from these legal proceedings.

The case which has just been described involved the trial and punishment of
a corregidor in the defense and protection of the natives. It is important to
note that this case was ordered to be tried in first instance by the governor
and not by the audiencia. The jurisdiction of the latter tribunal in second
instance was confirmed by the king on this occasion. By the law of October
9, 1812, and by others made pursuant to the Constitution of 1812, the
audiencia was given jurisdiction in first instance over cases involving
provincial officials, and particularly judges. In regard to the care and
protection of the Indians, which was involved in this controversy, the law
provided that such cases should be treated originally by the corregidores
and alcaldes mayores with appeal to the audiencia.56 But this case dealt
primarily with the official conduct of a corregidor, over whom the governor
had more direct jurisdiction. The cédula of May 13, 1798, which constituted
the reply of the king to the appeal of the fiscal in the case described above,
ordered that henceforth in cases affecting the relations of the corregidores
and alcaldes mayores on the one part and the Indians on the other, the
fiscal, audiencia, and governor should act in acuerdo, in that way avoiding
friction and quarrels over jurisdiction.57
That the audiencia did not always try cases relating to the Indians with
requisite promptness, is evidenced by the many and repeated letters of the
king to the tribunal, to the fiscal, as protector of the Indians, and to the
regent, chiding these officials for delay. On many occasions the royal zeal
for justice in the treatment of the Indians, based on a lack of knowledge of
the true nature of the Filipino, completely overruled all considerations of
practicability and common sense. As an illustration of this, on June 20,
1686, certain natives of the province of Bulacán sent false evidence to the
Council of the Indies; this testimony was taken in preference to that
remitted by the audiencia, the decision of the latter body being reversed by
the Council of the Indies. The audiencia refused to allow the execution of
the new judgment; the oidores all offered to resign in protest, and the
regent, at the risk of removal, reopened the case. It was proved by the
testimony of a number of officials and by the confessions of the natives
who had perjured themselves that the evidence upon which the Council had
acted was false.58 A record of these proceedings was remitted to the
Council and that tribunal promptly reversed its former decision.

Further illustrations of the authority of the audiencia in cases involving

natives may be seen in suits which arose from time to time over the illegal
treatment of the latter by the friars and the unjust occupation of the natives’
lands by the religious orders. These suits afford illustration, also, of the
services of the audiencia as an agency to force persons to show their titles
to lands which they held.59 This jurisdiction will be given more detailed
treatment in the proper place, but the brief citation of one or two cases
among many seems advisable to illustrate the activity of the audiencia in
protecting the Indians, both by trying suits involving them and by actually
intervening in their behalf.

Various revolts broke out among the Indians near Manila from 1740 to
1750. These insurrections were said to have been provoked by the
encroachments of the Augustinians and Dominicans on the lands of the
natives. The matter was called to the attention of the home government, and
Pedro Calderón Enríquez, an oidor, was ordered to investigate the charges
made against these religious orders and to ascertain the validity of their
claims to the lands in question. The friars, when ordered to submit titles to a
secular judge, refused to comply, claiming ecclesiastical exemption. In the
face of their opposition, Calderón dispossessed the friars of the lands which
they were said to have usurped and which they were continuing to hold
without legitimate title, restoring the lands to the crown. The case was
appealed to the audiencia and that tribunal upheld the visitor.

Calderón also found that the University of Santo Tomás and the
Dominicans, in collusion with a clerk of the audiencia, had taken lands
from the native town of Sílang in 1743. Calderón restored the lands to their
rightful owners and his act was approved in judicial review by the
audiencia. The friars took exception to this by appealing to the Council of
the Indies. The Council notified the audiencia of its affirmation of the
judgment of Calderón and further stated that the lands of Sílang, Imús, San
Nicolás, and Cavite had been unjustly seized and should be restored. This
was not only an affirmation but an extension of the sentence of the oidor,
made by the Council after the royal fiscal (of the Council of the Indies) had
reviewed all the evidence presented in the case. This suit shows the efforts
made to carry out the royal intention that the natives of Spain’s colonies
should be justly treated. It also shows the respective jurisdictions of the
audiencia and Council of the Indies as courts of review and appeal in
adjusting disputes between the church and the Indians.

In addition to the above, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over the

religious themselves, both as individuals and as subjects of the king,
punishing them for violation of the civil laws of the realm to which they
were amenable as subjects. An illustration of this is furnished by the
following case which occurred in 1617. Two Augustinian provincials were
murdered, one, Fray Gerónimo de Salas, by poisoning, and his successor,
Fray Vicente Sepúlveda, by strangulation. A tribunal of friars, composed of
nine prominent members of the Augustinian order, was appointed by the
bishop for the investigation of the crime. This body, after due consideration,
caused six members of the order to be apprehended; four of them were
believed to be guilty of the murder and two were suspected of connivance at
the crime. On July 31, 1617, these six culprits were handed over to the civil
government, and on September 2 of that year, the four guilty ecclesiastics
were condemned to death by the audiencia, while the other two were
sentenced to six years of service in the galleys. This case illustrates the
extent of ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised respectively by the church and
government tribunals under the fuero mixto.60 The former, on this occasion,
made the preliminary investigations and handed the culprits over to the
secular authority with recommendations; the latter conducted the trial,
passed sentence and saw to its execution. The trial and conclusion of this
case covered the remarkably short period of thirty-three days.61

Speaking generally, the authority of the audiencia over ecclesiastical affairs

extended to disputes between orders, between the government and the
church, or its representatives, to cases relating to land titles, to those
alleging abuses of the Indians by the friars, to cases involving the royal
patronage, and to cases of fuerza.62 As the question of the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the audiencia will be discussed more fully in subsequent
chapters, no effort will be made at this time to particularize concerning its
authority over church affairs, it being merely desirable to suggest the fact
here that the audiencia had jurisdiction in suits involving the church and the
civil government and in those which had to do with the protection of the
natives from the abuses of the ecclesiastics.

Records of thousands of cases exist to show the different kinds of suits tried
judicially in the audiencia. Civil and criminal matters came up in the
tribunal as in all other courts of law, and hence, as such, merit only passing
attention. Among civil cases possibly the most typical were those relating to
encomiendas. It must be borne in mind that the Spaniard, however
mistakenly from the theoretical point of view, regarded the encomiendas as
property in the same sense as a modern farmer regards his farm as property.
He paid a rental or tax to the government, he engaged in agriculture for
gain, and, as we have seen, the moral duty of protecting, uplifting, or
educating the Indians rested but lightly on his conscience. Therefore, as
these cases are discussed in the following pages, the value of the property
and not the treatment of the Indians on the encomiendas is the first
consideration. As already stated, the law of Malines reserved for the
Council of the Indies final action in all encomienda suits involving more
than one thousand ducats.63
Many suits involving encomiendas came up prior to the establishment of
the audiencia; the defects apparent in the trial of these cases by the governor
show clearly the need of an audiencia at that time. The earliest case noted in
this connection was prosecuted in 1580 by the asesor of the governor
against Doña Lucía de Loaxa, the widow of an encomendero, with the
object of dispossessing her of an encomienda held at Butuán, Mindanao.64
She was charged with having nullified her title by marriage to another
encomendero, since the law forbade married women to hold encomiendas.
In her defense she alleged that the desire of the governor to enforce the law
was only pretense, since many married women in the Philippines held
encomiendas. She stated that the governor desired to deprive her of her
property in order that he might bestow it upon a friend. This case was
carried to the Council of the Indies, and it illustrates the effectiveness of the
law of Malines, which took from the governor authority over a case in
which he was interested and gave final jurisdiction to the tribunal in Spain.
The papers pertaining to this case were returned to the governor with orders
to do as the law commanded. The defendant was accordingly removed from
the encomienda.

Another case was disposed of in a slightly different manner. On January 22,

1581, Juan Gutiérrez de Figueroa, second husband of Magdalena
Rodríguez, widow of an encomendero of Mindanao, filed suit before the
governor praying to be continued as possessor of an encomienda which his
wife had held prior to her marriage to him. He brought the suit on the
grounds that he was a soldier and was accordingly deserving of reward.
This case, in accordance with the provisions of Malines, came within the
jurisdiction of the governor. He denied the petition, but the soldier appealed
the case to the Council of the Indies and that tribunal again reversed the
decision of the governor on May 23, 1584.

In January, 1582, Bishop Salazar, as protector of the Indians, brought suit

before Governor Ronquillo de Peñalosa against Juan de Ayala, a Spaniard
holding various encomiendas in different parts of the Island of Luzón, but
resident in Manila. Two specific charges were brought against Ayala. He
was said to have reduced the Indians on his encomiendas to the status of
slaves, which was forbidden by the law of November 9, 1526.65 He had
also violated the law which prescribed that encomenderos should live on
their encomiendas,66 and give their personal attention to the Indians
thereon. Ayala adduced testimony to prove that this law was a dead-letter
and that it was disregarded by most of the encomenderos. He even showed
that there were many of them residing in Spain who held encomiendas in
Spain and Perú. Governor Ronquillo felt that the evidence at hand was
insufficient to justify a decision in this case, so he permitted it to be carried
to the Council of the Indies. The latter tribunal rendered its decision on June
24, 1584, communicating to the Audiencia of Manila its ruling that Ayala
should be allowed to retain the encomiendas in question, but the president
and oidores were especially charged to enforce the law prohibiting slavery
in the Indies.

The procedure in these cases confirms the laws already alluded to, which
were promulgated before the establishment of the audiencia, that the
governor should have jurisdiction in suits involving less than a thousand
ducats, with appeal to the Council of the Indies. It would also appear, from
the data at our command, that the audiencia inherited the governor’s former
authority in these matters.

During the period from 1583 to 1589, and after the re-establishment of the
audiencia in Manila, this tribunal exercised authority over suits involving
encomiendas. There is so much sameness in the nature of these cases that
little would be added by describing them. There appears evidence of
considerable conflict of jurisdiction, however, between the governor and the
audiencia over the adjustment of the latter to the new situation relative to
the encomiendas. Governors Acuña, Tello and Fajardo sought on various
occasions to retain jurisdiction over suits involving encomiendas on the
basis of the law of Malines, notwithstanding the fact that the audiencia had
been given the duty of trying such cases. When appeals were made to the
Council of the Indies, that tribunal made clear its determination that the
audiencia should try suits involving encomiendas, but that in administrative
matters relating thereto the will of the governor should prevail, unless his
decision were contested through legal channels. An illustration of such
difference of opinion may be noted in the letter written by Governor Juan
Niño de Tavora on August 4, 1628, to the Council of the Indies. Tavora
complained of the action of the audiencia in regard to the disposal of a case
involving an encomendero who had married the widow of another
encomendero, and who had tried to unite and hold both their encomiendas
after marriage. The governor contended that two persons holding
encomiendas by previous right should choose the more desirable one and
relinquish the other, in accordance with the practice in other places.
Especially should this be done in the Philippines, he held, because there
were so few encomiendas in the Islands. The fiscal approved of this
suggestion and made a motion before the acuerdo of the audiencia that this
course should be pursued, but, as no laws had been promulgated on the
subject, there was no precedent to follow. The audiencia accordingly
declared that such a course as the governor had suggested would not be
legal. Tavora petitioned the Council of the Indies for a ruling on the subject.
The Council sustained the governor in its consulta of January 15, 1630.

There was apparently no limit to the value of suits involving encomiendas

which might be tried in the audiencia, and appealed to the Council of the
Indies. There exists the record of one case in which the encomienda was
valued at 223,000 pesos. In this suit the fiscal proceeded against Doña
Juana Leal and Francisco de Rebolledo, residents of Mexico, for possession
of an encomienda held in the Philippines. This case affords an illustration of
the delays to which the course of justice was subject, it being appealed to
the Council of the Indies in 1612, and not finally settled till 1620. A suit
involving an encomienda valued at 430,102 pesos came before the
audiencia in 1703, when two residents of Manila, named Delgado and
Abaurrea, were dispossessed of an encomienda by the governor. The
encomienda was awarded immediately to Juan de Echevarría and Antonio
de Endaya. The latter were prosecuted in the audiencia by the dispossessed
encomenderos, and the tribunal, in compliance with the law of Malines,
made the prescribed investigation, recommending that the governor’s action
should be disapproved, since the evidence showed that the persons installed
on the encomienda were distant relatives of the governor. The Council
adopted the recommendations of the audiencia in this case, ordering that the
original encomenderos should be restored to their estate, and that this
breach of royal commands should be registered against the governor to be
answered in his residencia.
Another suit, of a similar nature to that described above, was brought in the
audiencia in 1713 against Juan de Rivas, who had been assigned two
encomiendas in Leyte and Cebú, respectively, by the governor, thus
depriving one Saramiento who had held them formerly. The plaintiff
claimed that he had made great improvements on these estates, spending all
his income thereon, and as yet had received no profits from the lands. He
petitioned, therefore, that these encomiendas should be bestowed upon him
for another term.67 The audiencia withheld its judgment on this case,
referring it to the Council. That body, after seeking the advice of the royal
fiscal and contador, recommended to the king that Saramiento should be
allowed to retain the encomiendas for another term, and it was accordingly
done, a royal order to that effect being expedited on May 29, 1715.

It is notable how frequently the action of the audiencia or that of the

governor was confirmed by the Council of the Indies. In most of the cases
which have been described, the original papers, including letters, autos and
testimonios, each expediente68 containing from one hundred to two
thousand pages, are marked “seen by the Council”, “action of the governor
confirmed”, or “no action to be taken”; the original decisions being thus
confirmed. It may be concluded, therefore, from this brief study that the
audiencia had appellate jurisdiction as a court of law over suits involving
encomiendas, and, furthermore, that the tribunal acting in that capacity
placed a very effective and definite check on the governor in his executive
control over encomiendas.

Property suits, aside from those involving encomiendas, were numerous.

One noted case may be cited in which the heirs of Governor Fausto Cruzat
y Góngora in 1703 brought suit to recover money owed by Gaspar Sánchez
and Bernardo de Guirós to the ex-governor. The audiencia failed to award
the sum, which approximated 8000 pesos. The case was appealed to the
Council of the Indies and the decision was reversed, the plaintiffs being
awarded the money originally sued for, with costs of suit. A similar case
was brought by the children and heirs of Governor Bustamante against Juan
de Nebra, general of the galleon. The case was tried in the audiencia and
the tribunal decided in favor of the defendant. The case was appealed to the
Council of the Indies and the decision was reversed.69 In 1736 Gaspar
Thomé, a Frenchman, sued the estate of a deceased debtor, Juan de Olerte,
for 2000 pesos.70 The case was appealed to the Council of the Indies, and
fully two hundred pages of documentary material exist, carefully annotated
and digested, to show how thoroughly and with what formality a suit of
even that small import was tried. We have already noted the tendency of the
government to discourage the appeal of property suits to the Council of the
Indies. The jurisdiction of the audiencia was final, for the most part, in suits
involving sums from 200 to 6000 pesos.

As matters of trade were always important in the life and politics of the
Islands, commercial suits commanded a large share of the attention of the
audiencia. Up to 1769 the jurisdiction of the audiencia was supreme in
matters relating thereto,71 but on December 13 of that year a consulado was
established at Manila, thereby relieving the audiencia of much of its former
control over commercial affairs.72 The consulado, from the time of its
establishment, was an ever-present thorn in the side of the audiencia and
conflicts over the respective jurisdictions of the tribunals73 were continually
arising. We may briefly cite one or two cases to illustrate the respective
jurisdictions of the audiencia and the tribunal of the consulado. On
December 26, 1806, action was brought by two Spaniards against the
British firm of Jacob Smith and Company on account of the inferior quality
of goods sold to the plaintiff by that firm.74 Suit was brought originally in
the audiencia, but the consulado applied to the governor for jurisdiction in
the case on the ground that, as a commercial suit, it should be tried in the
consulado.75 The governor awarded jurisdiction to the audiencia. The
consulado re-appealed the case, but the Council sustained the governor’s
decision on the ground that this was a suit between a private individual and
a merchant which should be tried in the audiencia, the tribunal which
usually tried cases between individuals. The function of the consulado, the
royal decree stated, was to try suits of a commercial character which arose
between merchants.76

An occasion on which the jurisdiction of the audiencia was unquestioned

may be noted in the suit which was appealed to the Council of the Indies
from the audiencia in 1698, over the wrecking of the galleon “San
Francisco Xavier”. The admiral, Don Esteban Ramos, was held accountable
for the silver carried on the ship and the merchants of Manila sued him for
what they had lost in the wreck.77 It was charged that Ramos had landed the
silver, but was seeking to conceal that fact, claiming instead that it was lost.
The case was appealed to the Council by the defendant.78 The Council
referred the case to the Junta de Guerra,79 and that tribunal reversed the
decision of the audiencia, declaring that Ramos was a faithful servant of His
Majesty, and still a poor man. There was no possibility of his having the
silver. Ramos was transferred to the Atlantic flota.80 The royal fiscal, in the
opinion rendered for the guidance of the junta, made the comment that
frequently the oidores of colonial audiencias were influenced, against their
own ideas of justice, by the opinions and wishes of the most powerful
residents. Such was possibly the case in Manila on this occasion. This
statement at least shows that those in control at Madrid were aware of some
of the fundamental weaknesses of the colonial audiencias.

Another typical case, indirectly connected with commerce, occurred in

1713, when the fiscal of the audiencia prosecuted three captains, Enrique
Boynont, Fernando Gall and Diego Brunet, who had arrived at Cavite in
command of French merchant and exploring ships, without the royal
permission to trade in the Islands. These captains, who were foreigners, of
course, were charged with smuggling, and were brought before the royal
audiencia. The charges against them were not proved, and in due time the
cases were dismissed.81 The laws of the Indies authorized the governor and
the alcaldes del crimen to try cases of strangers,82 but in Manila, where
there were no magistrates of this category, such cases were tried by the
audiencia.

Perhaps the most important commercial suit that was ever tried in the
Audiencia of Manila, came before that tribunal in 1656, when several
residents of Mexico were excluded from the use of the galleon and their
goods confiscated. This action was in accordance with repeated cédulas and
regulations which reserved the space in the galleon for the exclusive use of
the Manila merchants and authorities. Mexican traders, who had from time
to time shipped goods on the galleons, were forbidden to crowd out the
Manila merchants, who depended on that trade exclusively. The fine levied
on this occasion amounted to 273,133 pesos. The case was appealed to the
Council of the Indies, the aforesaid decision was upheld, and the sum was
finally ordered paid in Mexico.83

During the greater part of the audiencia’s existence there was no consulado
in Manila and the jurisdiction of the audiencia in commercial cases
extended to suits between merchants for space on the galleon. The tribunal
had jurisdiction over the trial of officials for dishonesty in the assignment of
galleon space: investigations of officials charged with reserving more than
their due share of space, and such other cases as are mentioned in the laws
of the Indies as being the concern of the consulados of Lima and Mexico.84
Officers of the galleons were tried for mistreating seamen, for smuggling,
for exceeding the limit of merchandise allowed, for giving passage to lewd
women and to persons travelling on the galleons without permission. They
were tried for carrying more slaves than they were allowed by law to carry,
for charging exorbitant prices of passage, and for failing to turn in accounts
of money collected. Commanders were often held criminally responsible
for carelessness in navigation and for shipwrecks. These cases were tried in
the tribunal of the consulado after 1769.

The audiencia had appellate jurisdiction over all residents of the colony,
both natives and Spaniards. All crimes committed within five leagues of the
city of Manila were ordered to be tried by the oidores in first instance,85 but
unless they were of extraordinary importance, special investigators, usually
alcaldes mayores or alcaldes ordinarios, were delegated to try them in the
name of the audiencia.86 As already stated, most of the criminal cases
arising in the colony were tried in first instance in the provinces by the
alcaldes mayores. Cases appealed to the audiencia were reviewed in that
tribunal. The trial consisted of an examination of the summary or abstract of
the case as it was originally tried by the lower judge and, if errors were
found to exist, the decision was either reversed or the case was remanded to
the judge who first had tried the case, for second trial.87 The audiencia did
not try the case with the defendant present. It merely reviewed the
proceedings of the lower judge. Criminal cases were not ordinarily
appealable to the Council of the Indies.

The procedure in criminal cases was generally so similar to that already

described that it is unnecessary to give any illustration of the audiencia’s
criminal jurisdiction. Most of the cases that eventually reached the
audiencia involved Spaniards, native caciques, and half-castes. Natives who
were charged with robbery, murder, and crimes of a depraved nature were
usually of a class unable to finance appeals to the audiencia. This fact
probably accounts for the scarcity of criminal cases appealed during the
first two centuries of the audiencia’s existence.88 However, the reforms of
the nineteenth century brought an increased number of cases into the
audiencia by systematizing the administration of justice, differentiating the
judgeships from administrative offices, and providing for greater facility of
appeal.89

It is probable that in criminal as well as in civil cases, Spaniards derived

considerable benefit from the fact that the audiencia was composed of
magistrates of their own nationality. High officials, no doubt, escaped the
consequences of their misdeeds more easily than did men of more modest
social and political attainments. This is shown by the well-known case of
the murder by Governor Fajardo of his wife on July 21, 1621; this came up
before an audiencia which was composed of judges who were largely under
the governor’s domination. The tribunal gave the matter a cursory
investigation, after which the governor was allowed to go unpunished.90 We
shall see that proceedings were different, however, when officials under
investigation were charged with offenses against the government. The
residencia, which dealt with such charges, was a pitiless form of inquisition
in which the officiating magistrate was in duty bound to find his victim
guilty, if possible.

Criminal cases of a character slightly different from those described above

were prosecuted by the government for the infraction of any governmental
regulation, or for the evasion of the payment of taxes or duties. The
collection of revenues devolved upon the oficiales reales and they were
ordered to accomplish their duties in this particular, if possible, without the
assistance of the courts.91 Numerous cases did come up in the audiencia,
however, involving the prosecution of individuals for violations of the
alcabala, quinto, and the tax on the export of silver (comisos). Persons
assisting in the apprehension of violators of these laws were rewarded with
a part of the proceeds of the fine, the remainder becoming the property of
real hacienda. On October 6, 1783, the final jurisdiction in cases of
smuggling and non-payment of the king’s fifth was taken from the
audiencia, appeals being authorized to the Council of the Indies.92

Reference has already been made to the services of an oidor as special

auditor de guerra. This, as well as other matters relating to the jurisdiction
of the governor and captain-general over military matters, wherein the
audiencia had no authority, will be noted when an examination is made of
the relations of the governor and audiencia in a subsequent chapter. Suffice
it to say here that the audiencia did not have jurisdiction as a court over
soldiers or military affairs.

Closely related to the subject of the defense of the Islands, and the exercise
of judicial authority over soldiers was the special jurisdiction which the
governor had over matters relating to the Chinese. This subject will be
treated in greater detail when we discuss the relations of the audiencia and
the governor.

During the first two centuries of its existence the audiencia had jurisdiction
as a judicial tribunal in the cases and instances which have been noted. It
had civil and criminal authority, original and appellate. Its decisions were
final in civil suits on claims for six thousand pesos or less. Criminal cases
were settled in the audiencia.

The judicial authority of the audiencia was impeded during the greater part
of its history by the failure of the government to entrust it with complete
jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, and by the tendency of the
latter to interfere in matters of minute and insignificant detail, which should
have been left to the magistrates of the tribunal. The Constitution of 1812
and the reforms made in pursuance thereof really effected the changes
which had long been needed. The audiencia’s jurisdiction was made final in
all civil suits and increased in administrative cases; thereafter no appeals
were made to the Council of the Indies unless they involved administrative
law. Cases involving official dishonesty, incapacity, residencia, pesquisas,
treason, disputes between audiencias and other tribunals over conflicts of
jurisdiction, and questions of the interpretation of the law were still carried
to Spain. These were important steps for the improvement of colonial
judicial procedure; they served to simplify it, preventing a multiplicity of
cases from being carried to Spain which should have been settled within the
colony. These tardy reforms left to the home government more time in
which to occupy itself with questions of governmental policy, leaving to the
audiencias more authority and responsibility in purely judicial matters, thus
giving to them a greater prestige in the commonwealths wherein they were
situated.

The qualifications for the magistracy were also raised at this time, although
it cannot be said that the magistrates of the audiencias were at any time
incompetent or lacking in ability. The audiencias of the colonies were given
equal status with those of the Peninsula, and were thus elevated in dignity
and standing to the rank of tribunals of the first order. The chief defects of
the colonial judicial system of the seventeenth century were thus corrected,
though somewhat tardily. It is unfortunate indeed that these changes applied
only to a mere skeleton of Spain’s former colonial empire.

In this chapter we have discussed the audiencia as a formal court of justice,

with methods, practices, and traditions little different from those of any
tribunal of justice. However, it had judicial authority more extensive and
far-reaching than has yet been indicated. Among the different kinds of cases
over which the audiencia had jurisdiction, perhaps none was more
important, and certainly none was more exclusively peculiar to the Spanish
judicial system than suits of residencia. So distinct and extraordinary was
that phase of judicial activity that it merits consideration apart from a
discussion of the audiencia’s functions as an ordinary court of law. In the
following section we shall note its jurisdiction as an administrative court
over suits wherein the government was a party and wherein the object was
not only to punish offenders, but to act as a preventive of official
misconduct.
1 Recopilación, 2–15–32.
2 Ibid., 34–36, 44.
3 Ibid., 41.
4 Certain phases of these questions remained within the jurisdiction of the church
courts.
5 Recopilación, 2–15–53.
6 Parián, a market-place; the name given to the quarter set aside by the government
wherein the Chinese were confined. This restriction was imposed in 1603, to give added
security to the city of Manila, endangered by a Chinese uprising at that time.—See
Montero y Vidal, Historia general, III, 146–148; Recopilación, 2–15–55; 5–3–24; 6–18–5.
7 Ibid., 2–15–64; 2–16–16 to 20.
8 Ibid., 2–15–180.
9 Ibid., 70. See Chapter I of this book.
10 Ibid., 71.
11 Ibid., 3, 5, 67. See Chapter I, note 20, for distinction between oidores and alcaldes del
crimen.
12 Ibid., 68; 2–19–2.
13 Ibid., 1, 3.
14 Ibid., 2–15–63, 71.
15 Ibid., 2–15–74 to 85.
16 Ibid., 90–91.
17 Ibid., 93.
18 Exemption from the jurisdiction of the civil authority having been claimed by the
military and religious orders of Santiago, Calatrava, and Alcántara, Philip IV, on April 1,
1635, gave jurisdiction over these orders to the audiencias.—Ibid., 96.
19 Ibid., 5–10–1.
20 Ibid., 2.
21 According to the Recopilación, 5–13–1 (laws of October 20, 1545, February 13, 1620,
and the Ordinance of Audiencias [1563]), the value of the peso was fixed at 450 maravedís.
22 Recopilación, 2–15–88.
23 Ibid., 5–12–20.
24 Ibid., 5–12–29.
25 Ibid., 5–10–3.
26 Ibid., 5–13–8.
27 Ibid., 4, 7.
28 Ibid., 5–10–4.
29 Ibid., 5–13–1.
30 Ibid., 2–15–97.
31 Ibid., 88.
32 Ibid., 103, 107, 108. Magistrates were forbidden to sign decisions during office hours
—valuable time which should be devoted to hearing cases (ibid., 109).
33 Ibid., 105.
34 Ibid., 117. Pesquisidores were special investigators with extraordinary executive and
judicial powers who were sent out by the home or central government when need arose to
correct abuses in colonial or provincial administration. Visitadores (visitors) were sent
regularly to inspect the government of a province or colony. The governor was supposed to
dispatch visitors to examine the work of alcaldes mayores and corregidores every three
years.
35 Ibid., 118.
36 Ibid., 178.
37 Recopilación, 5–15–21. Acuerdo, the joint consultative action of the governor and
audiencia. See Chapter VI of this book and note 78 of the same chapter.
38 Ibid., 5–13–3. The periods of validity of cases appealed from the audiencias of
Ultramar varied with the distance and the time necessary for the transmission of autos to
the Council. The time assigned by the laws of the Indies was as follows: Chile, one and a
half years, Tierra Firme, New Granada, Santo Domingo, New Spain, one year, and the
Philippines, two years. This law was promulgated first on September 24, 1621, and again
on March 30, 1629.
39 Recopilación, 2–15–123 to 133.
40 Ibid., 133 (1563). Helps (Spanish conquest, I, 102, 103–104) states that the
repartimiento system was originated in 1496, from the requirement of Columbus that the
natives of Hispaniola should pay him a certain quantity of gold as tribute. In view of the
inability of the natives to meet the demands of the Spaniards in regard to the precious
metal, “the villagers were ordered to make (and work) the farms in the Spanish settlements.
This may be considered as the beginning of the system of repartimientos, or encomiendas,
as they were afterwards called.”
In a subsequent chapter the same author tells of the difficulty which Ovando had in
compelling the Indians to live among the Spaniards, to pay tribute and accept religious
teaching. Ferdinand and Isabella, in a letter dated December 20, 1503, directed Ovando to
compel the Indians to deal with the Spaniards, to work for wages, to go to mass, to be
instructed in the faith, and further, that they should do all these things “as free persons, for
so they are.” ... “Ovando adopted the following system,” says Helps; “he distributed
Indians amongst the Castillians, giving to one man fifty, to another a hundred; with a deed
that ran thus: ‘to you, such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, with such a
Cacique, and you are to teach them the things of our Holy Catholic Faith’. The word
encomienda ... was a term belonging to the military orders, corresponding to our
commandery or preceptory; and this term naturally enough came into use with the
appointment, as governors in the Indies, of men, who held authority in those orders, such
as Bobadilla and Ovando.” (See also Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 262.) “With
respect to the implied condition of teaching the Indians ‘the Holy Catholic Faith’ it was no
more attended to from the first than any formal clause in a deed, which is supposed by the
parties concerned to be a mere formality.”
“We have now arrived,” continues Helps, “at the climax of the repartimiento system. That
which Bobadilla did illegally, was now done with proper formalities on parchment: ... We
may notice again that the first repartimientos made by Columbus ... apportioned to any
Spaniard, whom he thought fit, such and such lands, to be worked by such a Cacique and
his people—a very different procedure to giving men—a feudal system, not a system of
slavery.”—Helps, Spanish conquest, I, 138–139.
41 Recopilación, 2–15–129.
42 Ibid., 127.
43 Ibid., 5–15–181.
44 Francisco de la Misa to the King, May 31, 1595, A. I. 67–1–29.
45 In this and in other letters of officials in the Philippines we find the amount frequently
referred to as 1000 pesos, although in the Recopilación (2–15–129 [1609]) the jurisdiction
is fixed at 1000 ducats. According to law 181 (1589), the authority of the governor (the
audiencia had been suppressed) was extended to cases of the same value.
46 It is probable that Misa meant that there was not sufficient distinction between the
governor’s asesor and the teniente de gobierno. This combined post was filled by Pedro de
Rojas until 1593 and then by Antonio de Morga. These officials were the private advisers
of the governors in legal matters, and active magistrates at the same time.
47 Memorial of Antonio de Morga, July 6, 1596, Blair and Robertson, IX, 271 et seq.
48 Cédula of May 26, 1596, A. I., 106–4–19.
49 Pardo de Tavera, in Census of the Philippine Islands, I. 335.
50 Recopilación, 1–1, 2, 3; 5–1.
51 King to the President and Oidores, February 16, 1602, A. I., 105–2–1; Cédula of
October 25, 1870; Colección legislativa de España, CV, 449–463; Cédula of April 12,
1875, ibid., CXIV, 516–524.
52 Recopilación, 2–15–81, 83.
53 Tondo is now a district or ward of the city of Manila. At the time referred to here, the
barrio of Santa Ana (small district under a teniente of a corregidor or alcalde mayor) was
within the jurisdiction of the corregimiento of Tondo.
54 Recopilación, 2–15–71, which forbade the trial of alcaldes and provincial officials
before the audiencia.
55 Council of the Indies to the Fiscal, A. I., 105–2–10.
56 Recopilación, 5–2–3; 2–15–81, 83.
57 This decision conforms with the Recopilación, 5–2–3, 4, and 2–15–68; 117. These
laws give to the audiencia and the governor jurisdiction over excesses of the provincial
judges and executives, and over cases appealed from them. Ibid., 2–16–44 gave jurisdiction
to the viceroy over criminal charges against oidores and alcaldes.
58 Council of the Indies to Audiencia, December 16, 1687, A. I., 105–2–1. The facility
with which witnesses may be procured is from one point of view a great aid to the
administration of justice in the Philippines today. See Elliott, The Philippines to the end of
the military règime, 246–8.
59 Royal decree on Usurpation of Indian Lands, November 7, 1751, Blair and Robertson,
LXVII, 27–34. See Cunningham, “Origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines” in
Political science review. X, 465 480.
60 Fuero mixto, in this case a fuero or concession to the ecclesiastical government of
jurisdiction over secular matters. See note 53, Chapter XI, of this volume.
61 Audiencia to the King, September 27, 1617, A. I., 67–6–20. Three of these friars were
hanged at once, and one, Juan Ocádiz, escaped to New Spain. He was said to be the
illegitimate son of Doña Ana of Austria (see Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 82–88).
62 Recopilación, 2–15–134 to 153; 2–16–15; 2–18–29, 30; 1–4–3, 20; 1–6–26, 39, 57;
1–7–18, 29 to 31; 2–15–146, 147, 149. See note 3, Chapter XI, of this volume.
63 Recopilación, 2–15–129.
64 This case and the others dealt with in this section involving encomiendas are to be
found in the Inventario de los pleytos en la real audiencia de Manila que se hallen en el rl.
y supremo consejo de las Indias y remiten al rl. archivo en Sevilla según rl. orden de Julio
de 1787. The key to the above exists in the Inventario de autos de la Essma. la Cámara de
Indias, IV, 453, A. I.
65 Recopilación, 6–2–1. This prohibition was first imposed by Charles V on the above
date and subsequently by Philip II and Philip III (see laws 1 to 14, same title).
66 Ibid., 6–9–11, 13.
67 The laws of the Indies (Recopilación, 6–19–6) authorized the governor of the
Philippines to assign encomiendas ad interim for the period of six years (promulgated
August 25, 1646). By the laws of May 1, 1774, and June 8, 1792, the period was made five
years in all the colonies except Perú; in the latter it was six years (note to Recopilación, 8–
22–1). We have record of the extension of an encomienda in the Philippines to the Hospital
of San Juan de Diós for four years by Governor Marquina on July 10, 1789. The cofradía
had held this encomienda for ten years, and on its petition the governor made this
additional concession, subject to royal confirmation (A. I., 107–5–18). The above episode
is at variance with the statement of Bancroft (History of Central America, I, 264) that the
encomienda system came to an end in 1721. Helps states that the encomienda system
“remained in full force until the reign of Charles The Third of Spain, at which period, it
appears, it was annulled.”—See Helps Spanish conquest, IV, 240.
68 Expedientes are defined in Blair and Robertson, LII, 72, note 28, as “all the papers
belonging to any matter, judicial, legislative, or executive, consisting of orders, opinions,
reports, and all other measures.” A testimonio is a duly attested and certified statement or
number of statements submitted as proof or evidence concerning a given matter.
Testimonios include transcripts of letters, cédulas, autos, and expedientes on a particular
subject, usually bound together. They may extend over a period of a hundred years or
more, showing step by step the factors leading up to the formulation of any auto, or cédula,
or given as reasons for a particular action taken by an official or tribunal. Testimonios form
a large part of the material in the Archive of the Indies. They are of the same value as
originals, and they are certainly more available and legible because frequently more
recently written.
69 Inventario, op. cit.
70 Note the appeal of a case involving less than 6000 pesos, which was contrary to the
laws of the Indies. (Recopilación, 5–13–1).
71 Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, I, 245.
72 Decree for establishment of the Consulado, in Manila, December 13, 1769, A. I., 108–
3–17.
73 The consulado was an organization of the merchants of certain authorized cities of the
Spanish empire. A consulado had to be established by royal authorization. The tribunal of
the consulado was composed of two consuls and a prior, who were chosen for terms of two
years and one year respectively. They were chosen by twelve electors who in turn were
designated by the members of the consulado. The tribunal de alzadas was composed of an
oidor and two merchants. The latter constituted the final court of appeal in the colony in
commercial cases and exception to their decisions could be taken only in the Council of the
Indies.—Martínez de Zúñiga, Estadismo, 245–246.
74 Council of the Indies to the Audiencia, January 21, 1808, A. I., 105–2–18.
75 Recopilación, 9–46–40.
76 Ibid., 9–46. This section of the laws of the Indies establishes the consulados of Lima
and Mexico, and lays down regulations for them.
77 This was before the time of the Consulado of Manila.
78 Inventario, op. cit.
79 The Junta de Guerra, was the committee of the Council of the Indies with jurisdiction
over military and naval affairs. When questions of this nature came to the Council they
were referred to the Junta, where decision was made and referred back to the Council. See
notes 17 and 36, Chapter VII of this book.
80 Inventario, op. cit.
81 Ibid.
82 Recopilación, 2–1–14; see also 9–27–35, 37, 2–2–39, also 9–27–3, 5, 13, 28, 29, 40,
47. These laws forbid the entrance of foreign ships and individuals to the ports of the
Indies.
83 Real Acuerdo de 17 de Julio, 1656, A. I., 67–6–22. (The final action of the Council is
indicated without date on the margin of the auto of the Audiencia.)
84 Recopilación, 9–46–28; 9–45–13.
85 Ibid., 2–15–111.
86 Ibid., 71.
87 Foreman, Philippine Islands, 241. The laws regulating the trial of cases on appeal may
be noted in Recopilación, 5–9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
88 The following figures have been taken from various reports of the audiencia to the
Council of the Indies, and they show the number of criminal cases tried in the tribunal in
the years designated:

1710—51 cases ... report dated December 11, 1711; A. I., 105–2–9.
1774—34 cases ... report dated December 25, 1776; ibid.
1776—48 cases ... report dated March, 1778; ibid.
1779—53 cases ... report dated July 30, 1780; ibid.
1786—99 cases ... report dated May 1, 1778; A. I., 105–2–10.
1789—51 cases ... report dated June 4, 1790; A. I., 105–2–10.
1795—38 cases ... report dated April 4, 1798; A. I., 105–2–10.
1822—641 cases ... report dated July 3, 1823; A. I., 106–4–21.
According to Desdevises du Dezert (“Vice-rois et capitaines généraux des Indes
espagnoles,” in Revue historique CXXVI, 59, 60) the Audiencia of Lima decided 89 civil
cases on appeal from February 11, 1788, to January 5, 1789. At the end of this period there
were 122 cases waiting on the docket. In the chamber of first instance of the same
audiencia 72 cases were tried and 124 remained to be tried at the end of approximately the
same period. In the criminal sala during the year 1788, there were 7 death sentences
rendered, 16 sentences for robbery, 14 cases tried involving personal injury, 15 for carrying
arms in face of the prohibition of the law, and 6 cases of adultery. The magistrates excused
themselves for this rather contemptible showing by alleging that the membership of the
tribunal had not been complete, to which the king made answer that there would have been
sufficient judges had not the latter continually absented themselves on the smallest
pretexts. The charge of indolence was also frequently brought against the magistrates of the
Audiencia of Manila.
89 See Colección legislativa de España, LXIV, 105–147 (Royal Decree of January 30,
1855). Cédula of December 6, 1858, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Diccionario de legislación
ultramarina, VII, 69. Cédula of March 10, 1857, ibid., VIII, 39. Royal Decree of July 4,
1861, Colección legislativa de España. LXXXVI, 1–45. The basic principle of these
reforms are to be found in the Constitution of 1812, Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, III,
408–458, and in Las Ordenanzas Nuevamente Formadas para el Régimen y Govierno
interior de la Audiencia Nacional de Manila en cumplimiento de la Ley de 9 de Octre de
1812, sobre arreglo de tribunales. A. I., 106–4–19.
90 Blair and Robertson, XX, 35–43, 147, 168, 196–198.
91 Recopilación, 8–10–16.
92 Cédulas of October 6, 1783, and of November 19, 1805, A. I., 105–2–18.
CHAPTER IV
 JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA; THE
RESIDENCIA1
The purpose of the residencia was to uphold the morale of colonial service
by making officials answer for all their acts in a judicial examination held at
the close of their terms. It may be said that the fear of the residencia was
almost the sole incentive to righteous official conduct or efficient public
service, and it will be seen that the audiencia exercised very pronounced
authority in this. Indeed, the audiencia had general supervision in a semi-
judicial capacity over the services of officials and public servants in the
colonies. It was the function of the audiencia to send reports to the court
relative to the conduct, work, or attitude of any employee or official of the
government, or of any resident of the colony. These reports were known as
informaciones (pareceres) de servicio.2 The tribunal itself was ready at all
times to hear complaints against provincial governors and judges, treasury
officials, magistrates, governors, or, in fact, any and all officials holding
their positions by virtue of the king’s commission.3 Charges might be made
by a wronged party or by anyone whose knowledge of an abuse was
sufficient to justify charges. Heavy penalties were imposed upon persons
making false or unsubstantiated charges.4 Complaints against alcaldes
mayores and corregidores were most likely to be made during the regular
investigation of the visiting oidor, which, as we have noted, occurred every
three years, but sufficient complaint might be made to justify the dispatch
of a special investigator at any time.5

The findings of the above inspections might be reviewed by the audiencia

and lead to the suspension and dismissal of the official under investigation.6
The final action had to be confirmed by the Council of the Indies in case the
person concerned were a royal appointee, but in these matters the action of
the local officials was usually approved. For the removal of oidores and
oficiales reales a slightly different method was pursued. A magistrate of the
audiencia was designated to investigate the case, the evidence was
submitted to the Council of the Indies and final action was taken by it and
not by the audiencia.7 Any and all charges brought against an official in
these investigations, even though he were cleared at the time, might be
revived in the residencia.

Suspensions from office were made by the governor with the advice and
consent of the audiencia. The governor had the legal right to make
temporary removals, but on account of the seriousness of such an act, and
the considerations depending upon it, he usually preferred to have the
support of the magistrates in the matter. The governor, as vicepatron, could
suspend prelates and other church officials, but he seldom, if ever, exercised
his powers to the full extent. The audiencia at Manila, on the other hand,
actually drove the archbishop from the city on various occasions. The
suspension and the removal of members of the ordinary clergy from their
districts was a frequent occurrence, but churchmen were not subject to
residencia. The audiencia had no authority to suspend or remove the
governor, though the magistrates could and frequently did bring charges
against the governor which led to his dismissal. Governors actually
suspended and removed oidores at times, though such acts were protested
as violations of the law which authorized only the Council of the Indies to
remove these officials.

Briefly, the procedure in making these removals was as follows: the

governor and audiencia investigated the conduct of an official whenever
circumstances demanded it; the latter was either suspended and
recommended for removal, such recommendations being made by the
audiencia to the governor or to the Council of the Indies, according to the
rank of the official, or the tribunal could make the removal itself.8 If
exception to the action of the audiencia were taken, all the papers relative to
the case were forwarded to the Council of the Indies, and if good reasons
were found to exist for the action of the lower court the Council approved
its action.9 This, was not the residencia as usually considered.

Of the various authorities at our disposal, Bancroft gives the most

acceptable characterization of the residencia. He defines it as an
examination held, or an account taken, of the official acts of an executive or
judicial official within the province of his jurisdiction during the term of his
incumbency. This, Bancroft says, was done at the expiration of the term of
office or at stated periods, or, in case of malfeasance, at any time.10 The
principle underlying the institution of the residencia was bequeathed to the
Spaniards by the Romans, being similar to and probably derived from their
law which gave the right of accusation to any Roman citizen against an
office-holder. The residencia was conducted by a judicial official, and it
combined the features of a general survey of the career of the official under
investigation, an auditing of his accounts and a formal trial. Its purpose was
to ascertain whether or not the official had faithfully executed his duties and
it served to clear him if he were proved honest, giving him a clean
certificate of recommendation. If he were found guilty of official
misconduct or dishonesty he was apprehended, degraded, and punished,
according to his deserts.

Professor Bourne has written in regard to the residencia:

The residencia ... was an institution peculiar in modern times of the Spanish
colonial system. It was designed to provide a method by which officials could be
held to strict accountability for all acts during their term of office.... To allow a
contest in the courts involving the governor’s powers during his term of office
would be subversive of his authority. He was then to be kept in bounds by
realizing that a day of judgment was impending, when everyone, even the poorest
Indian, might in perfect security bring forward his accusation. In the Philippines
the residencia for a governor lasted six months and was conducted by his
successor and all the charges made were forwarded to Spain.... The Italian
traveller Gemelli Careri who visited Manila in 1696 characterizes the governor’s
residencia as a “dreadful Trial”, the strain of which would sometimes “break their
hearts.”

Professor Bourne stated that it was the opinion of De Pons that “the
severities of the residencia could be mitigated, and no doubt such was the
case in the Philippines. By the end of the eighteenth century the residencia
seems to have lost its efficacy.”11

It is important to note at the outset that the residencia was not conducted
periodically alone, but that it might be held at any time in the career of an
official. The term pesquisa was applied to the form of residencia which was
carried out by a special investigator (pesquisidor), sent when serious
charges were made against the conduct of an official.12 In the investigation
which took place the official might be fined, or if grave offenses were
proved, he might be removed from office. Appeals might be made from the
pesquisidor to the audiencia and to the Council of the Indies. In fact, the
judgments of the pesquisidor were always reviewed in the local tribunal
unless the investigating judge had been commissioned by the Council of the
Indies.

The distinction which has been made here between the formal residencia
which occurred at the close of the term of office and the pesquisa which
might take place whenever serious charges were made, was first
emphasized in laws promulgated by Charles V in 1538, and by Philip II in
1591; these aimed to put a stop to the excesses of certain governors,
corregidores, and ministers of justice, who, relying on the practice then
prevailing of taking residencias only at the close of the official term, had
committed unlimited excesses. The new laws, above referred to, stated that
although it had never been the royal wish that residencias of royal
appointees should be taken without notice having been sent first to the
monarch, the above circumstances had made it necessary for them to be
taken when charges were made. This cédula, therefore, authorized the
taking of residencias whenever the best interests of the service required it.13

This cédula was followed by another which forbade the sending of special
investigators or judges of residencia against governors of provinces, unless
persons of responsible character presented charges against them, giving
bonds to cover the costs. An investigator was thereupon sent to conduct the
trial of the official under examination.14 This matter is covered in slightly
different terms in the law of June 19, 1620. According to that enactment, a
receptor15 might be sent to conduct the preliminary investigations of
corregidores and ordinary justices when these demanded instant attention
and could not await the formal residencia. If, as a result of this inquiry, the
guilt of the official seemed apparent, a more complete investigation was
made by a judge appointed by the president and audiencia in acuerdo.16