SearchMy library
← Table of contents
The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies

Chapter IV · JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUDIENCIA; THE RESIDENCIA1

Reading edition

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.

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.”

The oidores, it seems, did not always act as impartial judges when entrusted with these investigations; they were often influenced by the extra reward obtained for these services, and frequently by prejudice against the officials under investigation. Such were the charges implied by Governor Fajardo in 1619 when he wrote:

Owing to the death of Governor Lizárraga, to the imprisonment of Oidor Villa, and to the state of anarchy surrounding the administration of Torralba as governor, Pimentel was forced to languish in prison several years while he waited residencia. The appointment of Luís de Tagle as his successor and judge of residencia was dated June 25, 1717. This occasion was one on which the successor of a governor took his predecessor’s residencia, owing, the commission said, to the distance and the irregularity of communication between Manila and Guam. A letter of the audiencia, dated August 9, 1718, advised the governor that there were 427 unfinished cases on the docket of the tribunal, and chief among those that ought to be decided without delay was the review of the residencia of Pimentel; it was added that there seemed to be no prospect that a boat could get to Guam before 1719. The record of the termination of this case probably reposes somewhere in the archives, tied in an aged, yellow packet, bound by Spanish red tape.

In summary, it may be said that there were two kinds of investigations of official conduct, one taken at the completion of the regular term of office and the other at any time when the needs of the service required it. They both had the same ultimate purpose of holding officials responsible for misconduct in office, of giving to all persons an opportunity of having justice done to them and of deterring office-holders from future misdeeds.

A detailed survey of the governor’s residencia in the Philippines would illustrate the influence of the audiencia in such investigations. Unfortunately the story would be long and little space remains for such a purpose. During the first two centuries of Spanish rule in the Islands the residencias of the governors were especially stringent, many of these officials suffering deprivation of office, imprisonment, and exile. The families and dependents of some were reduced to the last extreme of poverty, while the victims themselves spent years in some distant province, unable to defend themselves from their enemies. Many victims of the residencia were purposely put aside in order that no appeal could be heard from them. One would occasionally find relief at last in a tardy pardon or in a modification of sentence, obtained through friends at home, when these could be reached, but more often death would intervene before the exercise of executive clemency or revision of sentence could be obtained.

We may briefly note a few of the most severe residencias in which the influence of the audiencia told against the victim. In 1625, Gerónimo de Silva, temporary governor, was imprisoned by the audiencia because he failed to pursue the Dutch after their defeat in 1617. The real difficulty lay in the fact that Silva had incurred the enmity of the senior oidor, who ultimately conducted the residencia, because Silva’s arrival in the Islands deprived that magistrate of the command of the military and naval forces of the Islands. Again, Governor Corcuera, after nine years of very successful rule, during which he distinguished himself in several campaigns of conquest and incidentally aroused the hostility and jealousy of the oidores, was arrested on charges made by the audiencia on the arrival of Governor Diego Fajardo in 1644. An oidor, who was the personal enemy of Corcuera, was designated to conduct the residencia, the ex-governor was fined 25,000 pesos and was imprisoned five years while the magistrates of the audiencia delayed the transmission of the papers which permitted a rehearing of the case. At last his defense was sent to the Council, the fine was remitted, he was given salary for the period of his exile, and the post of governor of the Canaries was conferred upon him. Although the audiencia was responsible for the injustice in this case, Fajardo, as president and governor, was held answerable in his own residencia for his conduct toward his predecessor.

Aside from the above brief references to notable cases in which the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over the residencias of governors, allowing itself to be influenced by considerations other than those of justice, it seems desirable to review in detail at least one case of the residencia of a governor, to show more particularly just what authority was exercised by the tribunal, and just how that authority was exercised.

The official papers of Marquina’s residencia, as formulated by the regent of the audiencia, arrived before the Council of the Indies in due time, together with Marquina’s defense which had been sent separately. The glaring injustice of the investigation as conducted by Amparán and of the official evidence transmitted, was patent to the fiscal of the Council. He refused to receive any testimony not incorporated in the official papers of the case. Marquina was allowed a retrial by the Council. This resulted in a further delay of three years; during this period Marquina remained in the provinces with the exception of the time spent in Manila giving testimony in his second residencia, which was taken under the direct supervision of Governor Aguilar. Immediately after his second trial Marquina was transferred to Mexico, but he was obliged to deposit an additional 50,000 pesos before his departure from Manila.

Marquina’s trial illustrates all the characteristics, the delays, terrors, and ramifications of a typical residencia of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Continued complaints against him caused Marquina’s residencia to be taken before the expiration of his official term. The regent of the audiencia was commissioned by the court to conduct the investigation because Marquina’s successor had not arrived. That magistrate was prejudiced against Marquina on account of having witnessed the governor’s continual malfeasance in office. He was unable to conduct an impartial investigation, and the audiencia, likewise prejudiced, would not intervene in behalf of the ex-governor. The wrongs done to Marquina in his trial were so patent that the Council of the Indies ordered a new hearing. A severe sentence was finally passed by the judge in Manila, but it was modified by the Council of the Indies through considerations of justice. The residencia occupied ten years, and during the greater part of that time the ex-governor remained in exile—a victim of his own misdeeds, the faulty residencia system, and the hostility of the audiencia. The customary severity of the residencia was only mitigated in this case by the presence of an impartial governor, who, unlike most governors whose desire was to harass their victims, sought to secure a fair trial for his predecessor. To accomplish this he was obliged to work against, rather than in co-operation with the audiencia.

We shall now examine more particularly the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the residencias of minor officials of the colony. It has already been pointed out that the residencias of provincial judges and governors, alcaldes ordinarios and reales oficiales were taken by judges appointed by the president of the audiencia, with appeal to the tribunal. These cases, under certain circumstances, might be taken on second appeal to the Council of the Indies. The practice in these investigations may be best understood by noting the development of the law regarding them, for, as we have already noted, the residencia was the product of years of administrative experience, during which various methods were tried, and rejected or adopted as they were found respectively inadvisable or efficacious.

The cédula of August 24, 1799, which has been mentioned several times in this chapter, was a reform of the greatest importance in the history of the residencia. Prior to its promulgation, all officials had to give residencia, but this law abolished that universal requirement. It provided that residencias of corregidores, alcaldes mayores, and subdelegate-intendants should be taken only when charges had been made against them. This might occur at any time during their term of office, or at the close of their service. These investigations had to be concluded within four months, but if charges were not made against an official his past record was not investigated.

If the judge were taking a residencia in the provinces he was frequently delayed in arriving at his post of duty, owing to the pressure of other business, or to the uncertainty of transportation facilities. In that event, he could not open the judicial investigation until the allotted period had almost transpired.

In the trial, two distinct lines of investigation were usually pursued: charges which had been made against the official were investigated and the records of his office were examined. The discovery was frequently made through this procedure that the official had embezzled money belonging to the government, usually investing it in private ventures. The inquiry might show that he had been careless in the execution of the duties of his office, remiss in his attention to encomiendas, particularly neglecting the Indians thereon, or too ignorant and incompetent to try properly, record, and transmit the autos of the cases which had come to him in first instance. These defects might not become apparent until they were revealed in this examination.

After Zéndera had occupied his post three years, complaints against him were brought to the attention of the fiscal. In his capacity as prosecuting official and as protector of the Indians, he made a motion before the audiencia in acuerdo, that a judge of residencia should be sent to conduct an investigation of Zéndera’s official conduct. The following charges against Zéndera had been sent to the governor, and on the basis of these, the fiscal, governor, and audiencia decided to conduct the investigation: First, Zéndera had compelled natives to work for him on his own estates, building houses, granaries, fences, tilling the soil and planting crops, from two hundred to three hundred men having worked for him continually, without pay or food; second, the arbitrary methods of this alcalde mayor left the natives without money with which to buy their food or to pay their tribute; third, not only were the men forced to labor, but the women were obliged to sew, spin and embroider without pay, and the product of their labor was confiscated by the alcalde mayor.

The audiencia and the governor, in acuerdo, having taken note of these charges, commissioned Angel Moguel, chief secretary of the government, to conduct the residencia of the alcalde. Moguel was put in possession of the necessary documents and departed at once for Vigán, the head city of the province. On November 7, 1782, he posted notices to the effect that Zéndera’s residencia was to be taken, calling on the residents to make formal charges against him. Moguel suspended Zéndera from office and accepted 20,000 pesos from two of his friends as bonds to cover the residencia, this sum offsetting the valuation of the properties for which Zéndera was responsible. These were additional to other bonds which Zéndera had posted on his accession to office.

The cédula above referred to abolished the residencias of tenientes letrados, alcaldes ordinarios, regidores, clerks, procurators, syndics, alguaciles, and other minor officials. In place of the formal investigation and judgment after the term of office was completed, the audiencia was given more complete control over their official acts, with the duty of seeing that justice was administered, jails inspected and kept clean, prisoners given a speedy trial and not molested with undue exactions, and the police supervised. The tribunal was also empowered to see that the ayuntamientos conducted their elections impartially and that the municipal officials executed their duties faithfully. In this way the formal investigation at the close of the term of these minor officials was replaced by a more efficient supervision of their acts by the audiencia. The constitutional reforms of the early nineteenth century gave to the audiencia original jurisdiction over the trial of judges of first instance, with appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. This authority was suppressed in 1815, and continued so until 1835, when it was restored to the audiencias of the colonies.

The various laws and cases which have been cited in this chapter show that the trial of residencia of captains-general, treasury officials, oidores, intendants, alcaldes mayores, and alcaldes ordinarios was a judicial function over which the audiencia had a large share of authority. It is safe to say that no residencia was ever taken in the Philippines, after the audiencia had been established there, in which that tribunal did not exercise some degree of authority. As the laws and regulations of the residencia varied at different times, the extent of the jurisdiction of the audiencia in this matter was not always the same. The audiencia either assisted in the examination of the charges or in the designation of the judge. The magistrate selected was usually an oidor. Oidores were liable to designation to conduct inquiries, and the audiencia, as a tribunal, tried these cases in review. The tribunal exercised supervision over the work of the investigating judge. The case was either finished in the audiencia, or reviewed there and appealed to the Council of the Indies through the action of the audiencia. The Council of the Indies was the supreme arbiter in all cases, prior to 1799. Subsequently the Council, or the Supreme Tribunal of Justice after 1834, retained final jurisdiction over the residencias of the higher officials only. In the residencias of provincial or local officials the jurisdiction of the audiencia was final.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · See Cunningham, “Residencia in the Spanish colonies,” in the Southwestern historical quarterly, XXI, 253–278.Note 2 · Ibid., 2–33, 1, 6; literally, a report on character of services.Note 3 · Ibid., 5–11.Note 4 · Ibid., notes 1 to 4.Note 5 · Ibid., 2–31–1.Note 6 · Ibid., 5–12–9.Note 7 · Ibid., 5–11–6; see also, 5–12–14.Note 8 · Ibid., 5–15–36 to 39; 7–1–10 to 13.Note 9 · Ibid., 5–12–7 to 9.Note 10 · Bancroft, History of Central America, I, 250–1. Special emphasis should be placed upon the last clause of the above definition. The periodicNote 11 · Bourne, “Historical introduction,” Blair and Robertson, I, 51–52; see De Pons, Voyage, II, 25; Churchill, Voyages, IV, 427–428; see also BarNote 12 · Recopilación, 7–1; 2–15–117.Note 13 · Ibid., 5–15–19.Note 14 · Ibid., 20.Note 15 · A receptor was a clerk of court, who on special authorization or commission of a tribunal was dispatched to institute judicial proceedings oNote 16 · Recopilación, 7–1–16.Note 17 · Ibid., 5–15–21.Note 18 · Ibid., 7–1–14.Note 19 · Ibid., 5–12–31.Note 20 · Ibid., 5–15–38.Note 21 · Fajardo to Felipe III, August 10, 1619; Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 276.Note 22 · The Marianas were the islands of the Ladrone Group situated 1200 miles east of the Philippines.Note 23 · Expedientes relativos á la residencia de Don Antonio Pimentel, Governador de las Marianas, A. I., 68–4–17 and 18.Note 24 · Recopilación, 5–15–3, 4, 8, 10–18.Note 25 · Ibid., 5–15–11, 24.Note 26 · Having been excused by the cédulas of July 7, 1789, and January 15, 1795, A. I., 105–2–5.Note 27 · Recopilación, 5–15, notes 4, 11. When the residencia of a viceroy or president was taken, the oidores were also held responsible for all opiNote 28 · Sinibaldo de Mas, the able Philippine critic of the nineteenth century, says in regard to the above characteristic of the Recopilación and iNote 29 · Recopilación, 5–15–1.Note 30 · Cédula of August 24, 1799, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, III, 280–281.Note 31 · Papeles relativos á la residencia del gobernador Salcedo. Inventario, op. cit.; also A. I., 67–6–10, 67–6–11, 67–3–4.Note 32 · Since all legal advice was furnished the governor by his asesor, Coloma would be examining his own acts.Note 33 · Recopilación, 2–18–27.Note 34 · Cédula of June 17, 1671, A. I., 82–6–10. In view of these proceedings, Salcedo’s letter of June 25, 1665, in praise of the services of ColomNote 35 · Recopilación, 5–12–8; 2–16–46, provided for appeal of cases carrying death penalty.Note 36 · Ibid., 5–12–31.Note 37 · Ibid., 5–15–38.Note 38 · Ibid., 39.Note 39 · Ibid., 2–2–58.Note 40 · Ibid., 64.Note 41 · Ibid., 5–15–3.Note 42 · There were two kinds of bonds, those posted at the beginning of a term of office, and special bonds of residencia, given at the time of thatNote 43 · Recopilación, 5–15–3; this cédula was annulled by that of May 21, 1787; see note to law 3 of the same title.Note 44 · King to Basco y Vargas, December 30, 1776 (A. I., 107–5–20). These annual deductions of one-fifth were first authorized on August 26, 1757, Note 45 · Recopilación, 8–19; see notes 11 and 13, Chapter V of this book.Note 46 · Recopilación, 8–26–17.Note 47 · Ibid., 5–15–42.Note 48 · Ibid., note 12.Note 49 · Royal decree of November 20, 1841, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 282; see also royal order of December 3, 1844 (for CuNote 50 · Officials, desirous of ingratiating themselves into the favor of the new executive, frequently journeyed by land and sea from Manila as far Note 51 · The residencia of a governor presented a splendid opportunity to his enemies for revenge. A governor was always in a fair way to make enemieNote 52 · Chapter II of this book.Note 53 · Montero y Vidal, Historia general, II, 253–258. Anda, as it will be noted later, spent an earlier term of service in the Philippines. He firNote 54 · Anda had more than the usual number of residencias to supervise at the beginning of his term. Owing to some misapprehension on the part of hNote 55 · As we shall note in another chapter, José Basco y Vargas inaugurated the reforms of the intendancy in the Philippines, retaining the post ofNote 56 · This residencia was held under the same laws that had prevailed throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A feature common to theNote 57 · Audiencia to the King, June 28, 1791, A. I., 108–4–18.Note 58 · Instructions to Amparán, February 19, 1792, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 59 · Instructions were also given at the same time for investigations of the official conduct of numerous persons who had been identified with thNote 60 · The just and honorable conduct of Marquina’s successor on this occasion may be contrasted with that of his various predecessors, whose unfaiNote 61 · He was charged with having entered into a conspiracy with an Armenian merchant to secure trade which should have gone to Spanish merchants. Note 62 · It is an interesting commentary on Spanish methods that, notwithstanding Marquina’s misgovernment in the Philippines, he was promoted to theNote 63 · Recopilación, 5–15, notes 4 and 5.Note 64 · Reales resoluciones del Consejo, 4 de Marzo, 1794, A. I., 106–4–18; Royal Order of January 18, 1848, Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramNote 65 · These discounts were “considered subversive of their authority [that of the governors]; ... the best guarantee of their acts is not a discouNote 66 · Recopilación, 5–15–20.Note 67 · Ibid., 4.Note 68 · Ibid., 5–2–1, 2, 7.Note 69 · Ibid., 5–15–19.Note 70 · Ibid., 7–1–16; 5–15–21.Note 71 · Ibid., 2–15–69; see 2–2–58, 64.Note 72 · King to the Fiscal, September 29, 1788, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 73 · King to the Audiencia, October 6, 1806, A. I., 105–2–18.Note 74 · Recopilación, 2–18–27.Note 75 · Ibid., 5–15, note 4.Note 76 · Ibid., 5–15–27 to 49.Note 77 · Ibid., 8–1–28; 5–15–35. Heavy penalties were prescribed for those who offered insecure financial guarantees (ibid., 5–15–33 to 36).Note 78 · Ibid., 34.Note 79 · Ibid., 39, 40.Note 80 · Expediente de Don Frco. Fernández Zéndera, alcalde mayor y capitán de guerra de la provincia de Ilocos. ... su residencia pendiente de inforNote 81 · It was said that he had shown favoritism in his dealings with some of the barangay (district) chiefs, allowing them unbridled license in theNote 82 · In taking the residencias of corregidores and alcaldes mayores the audiencia frequently took great responsibility upon itself. On July 10, 1Note 83 · The original sentence probably denied to Zéndera the privilege of holding the office of alcalde mayor only, since he occupied the post of reNote 84 · Cédula of August 24, 1799, Recopilación, 5–15, notes 4 and 5; see also Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, I, 282.Note 85 · Escriche, Diccionario. I, 578; see also royal order of November 20, 1841, and of January 18, 1848, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultraNote 86 · Martínez Alcubilla (Diccionario, XI, 477) and Escriche (Diccionario, II, 819) state that the cédula of August 24, 1799, abolished the resideNote 87 · See Cédula of July 7, 1860, in Rodríguez San Pedro, Legislación ultramarina, III, 287; royal order of July 25, 1865, ibid., X, 99; royal ordNote 88 · Recopilación, 5–15–17 and 18; 9–45–42.Note 89 · Governor to Council of the Indies, January 4, 1710, A. I., 68–4–15.Note 90 · Concepción, XI, 132–234 (Anson’s depredations).Note 91 · Briefly, the procedure in making these removals was as follows: the governor and audiencia investigated the conduct of an official whenever Note 92 · Of the various authorities at our disposal, Bancroft gives the most acceptable characterization of the residencia. He defines it as an examiNote 93 · 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 Note 94 · 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 theNote 95 · The distinction which has been made here between the formal residencia which occurred at the close of the term of office and the pesquisa whNote 96 · This cédula was followed by another which forbade the sending of special investigators or judges of residencia against governors of provinceNote 97 · The authority to determine whether cases merited investigation or not and whether an inquiry should be made, belonged to the acuerdo, while Note 98 · It is always to be believed that the auditors (oidores) to whom the inquiries are entrusted, ought to make them, not only as judges, but as Note 99 · A typical illustration of the jurisdiction of the audiencia in an investigation of this sort, and of the delay to which the minor officials Note 100 · Practically all of the colonial officials were subject to residencia. The most sensational and widely known residencias were, of course, thoNote 101 · Much contradictory legislation appears in the laws of the Indies relative to the method of taking residencias; this due to the reforms made Note 102 · The first residencia to be conducted in the Philippines in accordance with the new law of November 28, 1667, was that of Governor Salcedo, iNote 103 · The audiencia suspended the proposed action of Coloma, pending the reply of the Council of the Indies. In addition to the protest of the audNote 104 · The laws provided ample opportunity for appeal in cases of residencia. The cédula of November 17, 1526, ordered that appeals might be made tNote 105 · Philip IV initiated further reforms in regard to appeal in 1636. Ordenanza LVI, promulgated at that time, provided that “the said Council [oNote 106 · Officials were usually obliged to submit to residencia before leaving the colony, also before their promotion to higher posts.41 Owing, howeNote 107 · The judges of residencia who served as such in addition to their regular duties, received an additional compensation which varied according Note 108 · The factors of petty spite, malice, and personal ambition entered to an extensive degree in the rendering of testimony at a residencia. A goNote 109 · While as a rule the residencias of governors were severe, due largely to the presence of the audiencia, that of Dr. Sande, the first governoNote 110 · Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar, one of the most successful governors the Islands had ever known, was made to suffer from the personal maliNote 111 · Governor José Basco y Vargas, another very efficient governor,55 but one who had been opposed throughout his term of office by the audienciaNote 112 · We may select for this purpose the residencia of Governor Felix Beringuer de Marquina, which was the last to be conducted under the old lawsNote 113 · Amparán was commanded by the royal order above-mentioned to remove Marquina to some spot outside Manila where he could not interfere with thNote 114 · In compliance with these orders Marquina was relieved of his office in September, 1792, and was sent to Laguna de Bay, about thirty miles frNote 115 · In the ultimate judgment Marquina was pronounced guilty of many offenses in addition to those mentioned in the charges previously outlined. Note 116 · The regent fined him 40,000 pesos outright and, moreover, he was condemned to pay into the royal treasury an additional fine of 16,000 pesosNote 117 · The above method of conducting residencias of governors, presidents, viceroys, and superintendents was modified, as already mentioned, by thNote 118 · The earliest cédula on the subject, that of November 17, 1526, ordered that the audiencia should try all appeals from judges of residencia, Note 119 · The cédula of September 3, 1565, laid down the principle that the residencias of officers appointed by viceroys and presidents should be takNote 120 · The laws of June 3 and June 19, 1620, provided that the governor and audiencia should decide in acuerdo whether the residencia of a gobernadNote 121 · An illustration of the intervention of the Council of the Indies in residencias of alcaldes mayores is shown in the case of Josef Tormento, Note 122 · Although the cédula of August 24, 1799, gave the audiencia the right to conduct the residencias of corregidores and alcaldes mayores, this cNote 123 · The practice of granting jurisdiction over the residencia of an official to the authority that appointed him seems to have been followed repNote 124 · The length of time consumed in all residencias except those of viceroys was limited to four months. The period allotted for these investigatNote 125 · The judge of residencia would seem to have been well occupied during the time that he was conducting the investigation. He received and reviNote 126 · After all the evidence had been taken and the case had been duly tried, the judge of residencia was authorized to render sentence. SentencesNote 127 · A thoroughly typical case, illustrating all of the ramifications of a provincial official’s residencia, was that of Francisco Fernández ZéndNote 128 · For some unassigned reason, only twenty-five days were allowed for the filing of complaints, but during this time eighty-eight charges were Note 129 · Zéndera was found guilty of almost every charge made against him. The sentence of residencia was pronounced by the judge commissioned for thNote 130 · The cédula of August 24, 1799, already referred to, greatly altered the applicability of the residencias to provincial as well as insular ofNote 131 · Although the reform of August 24, 1799, recognized the residencias of alcaldes mayores, tenientes, and corregidores, merely transferring jurNote 132 · The audiencia also had jurisdiction over the residencias of galleon officials. These had to submit to residencia at the termination of each Note 133 · In pursuance of this authority, Magistrate Torralba was commissioned in 1710 to take the residencia of the officers of the galleon “Nuestra
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.
ChatGPTPerplexityGrok

Reading settings