Notes

inconclusive Evidence

By inconclusive evidence we mean the material that might be constructed as showing the existence either of rebellion or at least of rebellious intent, but which does not prove conclusively Rizal's personal and active involvement in it. Belonging to this category were three kinds of material available to the prosecution: letters, the testimonies of witnesses, the official dossier on Rizal furnished by the office of the governor and captain general.

Excluding those already mentioned as irrelevant to the indictment, some letters were produced which the prosecution considered incriminating but which really were not, or were at most inclusive.

A letter of Marcelo H. del Pilar, dated Madrid, 1June 1893 (while Rizal was an exile in Dapitan) and addressed to Juan Zulueta under the latter's nom-de-guerre of Don Juan Tuzluz, mentions del Pilar's disagreements with Rizal in the past and deplores the "misappropriation" of Masonic funds by Serrano. Del Pilar then says:

Spanish Masonry observes as means of propaganda. But if the masons over there [i.e. in the Philippines] are trying to make Masonry an instrument of action to achieve our aims, they are sadly mistaken. What is needed is a special organ designed specifically for the Philippines cause. Its members, or some of them, may be masons, it is important that the organization itself should be independent of Masonry. It seems that this is what the L.F. [Liga Filipina] is going to bring about. So much for now and regards.-Marcelo.

From the letter the suspicious minds of government official might hastily infer that therefore the Liga Filipina was intended for direct action (i.e. armed revolt) and that Rizal. Who wrote its statutes and encouraged people to join it, was therefore the principal author of the armed revolt. But such an inference is unjustified.

From Del Pilar's letter a historian might justifiably draw the following conclusions. Del Pilar wants to see an organized distinct from freemasonry and intended to promote direct action. What that direct action is, not specified. It could be economic or cultural cooperation. It could be armed revolt. There is no indication either way. Del Pilar thinks that Liga Filipina proper vehicle for that
You sent
direct action. Del Pilar, writing in the middle of 1893 (when Rizal had been exile in Dapitan for almost a year) must have been referring, not to Liga Filipina envisioned by Rizal in 1892 and which had quickly expired, but the one that was reorganized in 1893, with which Rizal was not associated as he was away from the scene. Del Pilar at this stage did not yet know the existence of the Katipunan, which was indeed a society intended for direct action.

That is was the historian must justly infer from that letter. But in a court of law, where a man's life at stake, that letter cannot be produced as proof of his guilt. First of all, it is not written by Rizal, but by someone else and addressed to a third party. Second, it makes no mention of subversion intent. If by "direct action" the government understood "armed revolt," that was conclusion which cannot be evidence. A similar analysis could be made of another letters in the prosecution's dossier.

The witnesses did not make their statements in open court. Rizal never saw the witnesses, and in most cases did not know them. They had been rounded up shortly after the discovery of the Katipunan and the start of the Revolution in August 1896, and their testimonies were made in prison. It is not impossible (certainly not implausible to suppose) that their statements were extracted under torture. This fact (as the defense counsel pointed out) made them "co-accused" with Rizal and an element of self-interest may have influenced their testimonies, rendering them unreliable.

A part from that, the procedure was basically flawed. Both the prosecutor (fiscal) and the defendant (and his defense counsel) were shown extracts of the testimonies. The judges never saw even those extracts: their merely heard the Briefs for the prosecution and the defense (and Rizal's additional notes). They rendered their verdict on the basis of this extracts.

But there was an even more basic flaw in the testimonies: most of it was hearsay evidence that the modern court of law would have considered inadmissible. For example: Antonio Salazar stated that Timoteo Paez went with Rizal's sister to Singapore to hire a ship that would take Rizal from Dapitan to Japan where Marcelo del Pilar and Doroteo Cortes were awaiting him.
That is hearsay evidence, and it was not supported by the facts. Timoteo Paez stated that he went to Singapore on other business, not to hire a ship. Marcelo Del Pilar did not go to Japan. As for Doroteo Cortes, Rizal said that who concocted this story were obviously ignorant of the fact that he and Cortes were on good terms, and expect him to go to Japan to meet Cortes was ludicrous. There was one thing in Salazar's testimony unreliable because it was hearsay, it was also conflicting. For instance, Deodato Arellano stated Timoteo Paez received the statues of the Liga Filipina from Rizal. Other said that is was Moises Salvador, and Salvador said he received them from Rizal who as in Hong Kong. But Jose Reyes said that Moises Salvador 'came from Spain with instructions from Rizal had drawn he statues." From what Rizal himself said, none of that was true. He drew u the statutes in Hong Kong at the suggestion of Jose Ma. Basa, he gave them to Basa. To whom they were sent after that, he did know (de la Costa 196,8ff.).
Despite the unreliability of all this conflicting testimony, the army officials seem to have taken them seriously. In the preliminary investigation Rizal asked about each one of them. Did he know martin Constantino Lozano? Agueda Del Rosario? Jose Reyes Tolentino? Was he related to one of them? etc., Rizal replied that he knew no one by that names. In the case of Del Rosario, he said that he knew no one by that name, that it was possible that he may have known the person himself. (Masonry, they went by assumed names.)
Regarding Antonio Salazar, the man that who had testified that Paez and Rizal's sister had gone to Singapore to hire ship to bring Rizal from Dapitan to Japan, Rizal said that he knew of a person surnamed Salazar who owned a shop called Bazar Cisne where Rizal bought his shoes, but he did not know him personally, and was not certain whether his first name was Antonio (de la Costa 1961, 5ff.). These were the men, unknown to Rizal, whose hearsay conflicting testimony was taken seriously as a proof of Rizal's guilt.
A piece of evidence considered important by the prosecution was the report on Rizal provided by the governor general's office describing the character, background and activities of Rizal. Prominent among those activities were his novels and others writing In modern journalistic language such a document might be called a profile.
profile, of course, might be informative and would show how the government officials Viewed Rizal's activities. But, as the defense counsel pointed out to the court, it had no probative value as evidence of guilt.