Reclaiming the Lost Archive of San Agustin Library

The city of the most holy name of Jesus on the twenty-ninth day of the month of April of one thousand six hundred and twenty-five.

Your most reverend lordship
lord bishop of Cebu Don Fray Pedro de Arce [exercising] the commission
from our father provincial to undertake the investigation about the
missing cross (the cross [originally] found with the most holy child Jesus).
His most reverend lordship made Padre Fray Juan Ruiz, prior of the
convent of Cabcar, appear before you and from [him] a legal oath was received,
placing his hand over his chest. He did this and
promised to speak the truth. Having been asked,
he said that this declarant knows that among the jewels of the child Jesus
was a [Spanish] golden cross enameled black
which was [the cross] with which the child was found. And that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo,
when he turned over the chest to go to the chapter assembly, turned over
to Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez the whole chest, sacristy, and jewels, etc.
of the holy child along with the missing cross as stated in the
registry signed by him and by Padres Fray Juan de Tujo and
Antonio Ximenez. And this declarant has heard
that a few days ago, a slave of the convent called Tomás
stole said cross and a necklace. The necklace
was found in the possession of a Sangley to whom said Tomás had
pawned [the item]. And without knowing that
it was the missing cross in, he did not undertake to report [the matter], thinking it was
of little worth and value until one day, when Padre Fray Juan de Ricovayo,
his lordship's colleague, came to the convent and was shown the
jewels of the most holy child. And he heard that the cross which had been found with the holy child was missing
and he later went to the church to see if it was
placed on the child as it usually was and did not find it. Said Tomás confessed
that he stole it during the chapter meeting, along with the necklace.
And it seems that way because Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez, who ended up as vicar, had gone
out of the convent to get cured.
And this declarant had himself gone with his permission
to entertain himself in Cabcar. And because of this the key of the holy child passed

through many and many hands. And with this,
said slave Tomás found the opportunity to commit said theft and he also states on record
that he stole it during the
chapter meeting because one day Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor came to
this convent as prior, according to this declarant,
to check the jewels of the child. Said father prior replied to them
"well, the child has jewels." And this declarant answered him
"yes and lots of them." And afterwards said prior responded "well,
let's have a look at them." And comparing [the jewels] with the record
of Prior Fray Juan de Tujo, it came to light that a cross was missing [but they]
did not know if it was the cross which was [originally] found with the child. And this
errand of looking at the jewels was done after Padre Fray Antonio had
left this convent for Panay without having turned over the
jewels because he was in a hurry for the
collection of rice as he had the chance to board a
sampan. And this is the truth for the oath
he took in which he affirmed it and ratified it and said that he was of
forty years of age more or less. He
signed it in his name and with his most reverend lordship.

Fray Pedro, Bishop of
the Most Holy Name of Jesus

Fray Joan Ruiz

Before myself
Fray Juan de Ricovayo

{On the left margin: Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez}

The City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, thirtieth day of April, year sixteen twenty-five

For the investigation
that we are ordered to do regarding the missing cross that
belonged to the child Jesus which was [originally] found with the child etc.
Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez appeared before you and from him a legal oath was received
upon his word as priest
and under [threat] of ecclesiastical punishment. He swore the above and promised to

to tell the truth. When asked what he knows about the loss
of the cross which was originally found with the child: He claims to know
that when Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor arrived as the prior of this convent,
this declarant wanted to give accounts and to surrender the child’s sacristy
and the jewels to said prior. This declarant sent them to Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
to do the above and take charge of it. And said Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
took them and received the money and the record of the
jewels. The declarant showed proof of all that had been
turned over to him and Padre Fray Juan Ruiz neither counted nor took [anything] from the box.
Instead, all he did was to say that everything was exact and the ornaments were complete
because he knew them to be so. Later, Padre Fray Juan Ruiz,
in front of the father prior and this declarant, placed the pages [of the record] into
the box and closed it and kept the keys,
after having taken out a quantity of pesos for expenses beforehand. And this declarant
was sure that there was no missing jewel
at that time because they only took them out to dress the child
during the eve of San Vidal. And when they took them out, this declarant
turned them over to brother Fray Martín de Jesús in
an altar cloth to account for those [items] which were necessary. The rest were left
in the box. And then, on the day of San Vidal,
after having returned to the cathedral
from the procession and having brought the child back to the convent with the same [account] with which the child was dressed
along with the jewels placed on him, brother Fray Martín de Jesús undressed the child.
He removed the jewels [(he was dressed with too many)]
and with some jewelry [the child] was returned to the usual tabernacle.
And all of this was done with the declarant present.
And this declarant is certain that the cross and chain went missing
while he was in Panay because when he returned from Panay they told him that a chain was lost
weighing one tae, and they never told him anything about the cross. And there were many other things missing
especially the money for expenses [under] Padre Fray Juan Ruiz's responsibility
and of which the father prior does not have a key. And this could be because
inside said Padre Fray Juan Ruiz’s cell
slept Tomás, the convent slave and other Camarines who were servants
of said father. Given that they stole the money from him, it could be that they
stole the key and the gold or if not then [he] benefited from the theft
of the chain [that would come to light] in the space of a few months.

because Padre Fray Juan Ruiz always had the keys to the
sanctum and the tabernacle of the child Jesus and he could
have been careless and [someone may have] taken the keys from him and stolen the
said chain and cross of the child. And the declarant says and declares
that in the time that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo was prior, said father prior
never gave the key to the child except
to one of his colleagues for the display of [the child]. And this [was]
always [done] with [the child wearing] the surplice. And he never gave
the key to the black man as is now being done in the time of said
Father Montemayor when said black man Tomás always [opens]
the tabernacle. And the declarant confirms this knowledge under oath.
It is recorded that he affirms it and ratifies it and signs it. Added between the lines "the said prior Fray Juan Ruiz" valid = And crossed-out "Juana de Ce"
not valid etc.

Fray Pedro Bishop of the Most Holy Name of Jesus

Fray Antonio Ximénez

Before myself
Fray Juan de Ricovayo

{On the left margin: Declaration and torture of Tomás, slave of the convent}

In the City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus on the second day of May of sixteen twenty-five his most reverend lordship,
for further investigation
to know who stole the cross and chain, and from the
records it appears that Tomás, slave of the convent, is suspected.
Having been asked some questions by his most reverend lordship,
Tomás was always [wavering]. To get him to
tell the whole truth, [his lordship] ordered [Tomás] to be placed on
a rack with nine cords, and he was required
to tell the truth. When asked if and when he stole the cross:
He said that it is true that he stole a necklace
with the cross in the tabernacle of the child, removing it
from [the child's] neck, and later he pawned it to an India named
Isabel, and this is the truth.

When asked who
gave him the key, he said that Brother Fray Martín gave him the key
to open the tabernacle on a Friday for mass
and that he says this in the name of Jesus.

When asked to tell the truth about who gave the mass
on the day that he stole the cross, he said "Father Fray Alonso Clemente"
and this is the truth.

When asked how he gave the cross to the India
named Isabel, he replied that a slave of the father prior
named Jacinto, stole it from this
declarant. And this declarant recognized said
cross in the possession of said Isabel and took it from her
and after three weeks have passed, this declarant
pawned the cross to said Isabel for six reales,
and this is the truth for the legal oath
that he swore and he signs it in his name together
with his most reverend lordship.

Fray Pedro Bishop

Before myself
Fray Joan de Ricovayo

Tomás Sareman

{On the left margin: Testimony of Father Prior Fray Juan de Montemayor}

The City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus on the fourth of April of sixteen twenty-five, his most reverend lordship for the said
investigation and to know when and how was lost the cross with which
the most holy child was [originally] found, summoned Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor
before him, prior of the convent of the child Jesus of this city. From him
was received a legal oath on his word as priest
and by the [religious] order that he [is a member of]. Having placed his hand
[on] his chest he gave [the above oath] and promised to tell the truth. [He was] asked
what he knew about the case and the news that he had had
about it. He said that when he became prior of this convent he did not even know
that the holy child had jewels nor had he heard about it until, after
fifteen or twenty days more or less after his arrival. [At that time] Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
told this declarant that the child had jewels. And then
at that moment this declarant, with Padre Fray Juan Ruiz, went to see them.
[They] compared the said jewels one by one with the record
that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo had left. [This record was signed with Fray Tujo's name and the name] of
Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez. This declarant could not find
the cross and moreover [he could not find] a necklace that, based on the record,
weighed one tae. This declarant asked Padre
Fray Juan Ruiz "what cross would be the one that was missing?" [Ruiz] could not
ascertain [to this declarant] whether it was the cross with which the child was [originally] found or another [cross] because
the said Padre Fray Juan Ruiz was not aware of how it looked like.
Nor did the record of the jewels indicate anything more than these
words "an enamelled golden cross found with the child"
and almost all of the [crosses] he had were made of gold and enamelled. Moreover,
the record adds "with a string of pearls and gold" and the
cross that is on this string is not the one that is missing, despite
having [an image of] our lady on the one side and [of] Christ on the other side there. This
worsened the confusion with which Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
told this declarant the above. [He said] that he was not sure but that it seemed to him
that the cross that they said was found with the child had the image of our lady.
Later as it seemed that the cross was not there
on this string but instead that it was the necklace stolen by the thief.
With these doubts, the declarant says that
he waited for Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez [to return]
from Panay. And when [Ximénez] returned, [Ximénez] did not know how to report
the cross and necklace['s disappearance] and instead he felt frustrated and said that
this declarant was harassing him. And because of this [reaction] and because of the said
sadness this declarant doubted
whether this cross or some other [cross that] was missing, until was seen [during the]

The canon Manuel de Rivero, judge and vicar-general of the diocese
of Cebu [appointed] by the most reverend lord
Don Fray Pedro Arce, bishop of this
diocese and of the council of his majesty,
certified as true that his most reverend lordship
undertook, said, and began the investigation
about the missing cross
of the most holy child Jesus of the convent
of the lord Saint Augustine of this city.
And after a few days, his lordship set out
to go on his rounds and assigned me to undertake
said investigation. The witnesses that they had called up
in Bantayan and other places came.
And a certain Juana Camagi gave him her [testimony] and swore an oath
on whether she knew who had
the missing cross. Said
Juana Camagi stated that she had

seen [it] in the possession of a certain Isabel
who was living in sin with
a slave of the father prior Fray Joan de Montemayor
named Jacinto. And the same [information] was
sworn by another witness, a slave of the convent
named Manuel, who saw it in the possession of
this Isabel, to whom the cross had been given by Jacinto,
slave of the father prior. And with these
two aforesaid [testimonies], Isabel was summoned
from the pueblo of Bantayan, where
she was exiled. And when asked what
she had done with the cross, although
she was asked through torture and the rack's cords tightened around her,
she constantly denied.
And after everything, a convent slave named Tomás, a sacristan, was summoned.
When asked about the cross, he confessed
plainly that he had stolen it and that
Jacinto, the slave of the father prior, had stolen it from him,
[said Jacinto] had given it to Isabel his friend.
And this Tomás, who had stolen the cross, when asked
what time he had

stolen the cross, said
during the current prior’s mandate
and with Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
as the vicar of the convent. And it was
during the time that Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez
was in Panay collecting
some rice. So that the father
provincial may be informed of what occurred
according to the investigation that
was undertaken about the cross, I give this [document] signed
in my name and with my seal,
which is dated 21 de Mayo de 1625.

Manuel Ribero.

This page is not translated, please help translate this page

the year twenty-five on the feast of the child Jesus he saw Padre Fray Juan de Ricovajo talking to
the colleague of his most reverend lordship [about]
dressing the image of the child and asking [if he knew about] the
cross. And the said father saw and certified that the cross was not there and was
missing on account of all the above reasonable doubts
that this declarant had along with the rest of the fathers, and [because]
the cross was already missing when he took possession of the church.
He delayed giving notice to our father provincial [fearing]
everything that has happened now [would take place], that the cross proves missing
and the slaves are on the loose and revolting and that the service and
the work of the church are disrupted. And that this declarant, after becoming prior, has always
turned over the key to a [member of the] religious [order], always
making sure that nothing should take place. And
in this he has taken particular care as everyone in his company
can attest to. And this is the
truth for the oath [he has] made where he affirmed and ratified
and said that he is fifty years of age more
or less and he signed it in his name.

Fray Pedro Obispo

Fray Juan de Montemayor

Before myself
Fray Juan de Ricovayo

{On the left margin: Declaration of Hermano Fray Martin de Jesus}

Today on the said day month and year, his most reverend lordship summoned before himself for said investigation
brother Fray Martín de Jesús
from whom was received a legal oath
according to his mandate. He swore [this oath] and promised
to say the truth and when asked what he knew about
what occurred regarding the theft of the cross, he said
that when Padre Prior Fray Juan de Tujo turned over the box and jewels and the rest of the items
of the sacristy to Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez, this declarant was only present during
the turnover of the expenses and that he does not know

when the cross was stolen. Regarding what Tomás said, that
he was the one who stole the cross and that this declarant gave him the key,
it is possible that he gave him the key since they had made him so busy
that he could not attend to everything because,
at the time, Padre Fray Antonio was sick and he was in the house of
Juana Decejas. Usually, Padre Fray Antonio
was with him during the day and that it could be at that time
that the robbery took place. And later, when Padre
Fray Antonio got better, the declarant was sent to the Bohol ranch
where he stayed for a year. And this is the truth for
the oath that he swore in which he affirmed and ratified
and stated that he is fifty years of age more or less and that he did not sign because
of ignorance.
His most reverend lordship signed.

Fray Pedro Obispo

Before myself
Fray Joan de Ricovayo

This page is not translated, please help translate this page

This page is not translated, please help translate this page

This page is not translated, please help translate this page

This page is not translated, please help translate this page