s was merely a technical quibble. Several
times when the case was supposed to be finally settled, it was again
re-opened. Happily it may now be regarded as closed for ever.

A great many well-to-do natives have a mania for seeing their sons
launched into the "learned professions"; hence there was a mob of
native doctors who made a scanty living, and a swarm of half-lawyers,
popularly called "abogadillos," who were a pest to the Colony. Up
to the beginning of the 18th century the offices of solicitors and
notaries were filled from Mexico, where the licences to practise
in Manila were publicly sold. After that period the colleges and
the university issued licences to natives, thus creating a class of
native pettifogging advocates who stirred up strife to make cases,
for this purpose availing themselves of the intricacies of the law.

The Spanish-Philippine _Criminal Law Procedure_ was briefly as
follows:--(1) The Judge of Instruction took the _sumaria_, i.e.,
the inquiry into whether a crime had been committed, and, if so,
who was the presumptive culprit. It was his duty to find the facts
and sift the case. In a light case he could order the immediate
arrest of the presumptive delinquent; in a grave case he would
remit it. (2) In the Court of First Instance the verbal evidence was
heard and sifted, the _fiscal_, or prosecuting attorney, expressing
his opinion to the judge. The judge would then qualify the crime,
and decide who was the presumptive culprit. Then the defence began,
and when this was exhausted the judge would give his opinion. This
court could not acquit or condemn the accused. The opinion on the
_sumaria_ was merely advisory, and not a sentence. This inquiry was
called the "vista"; it was not in reality a trial, as the defendant
was not allowed to cross-examine; but, on the other hand, in theory,
he was not called upon to prove his innocence before two courts, but
before the sentencing court (_Audiencia_) only. The case would then
be remitted with the _sumaria_, and the opinion of the Court of First
Instance, to the _Audiencia_, or Supreme Court, for review of errors
of law, but not of facts which remained. The _Audiencia_ did not call
for testimony, but, if new facts were produced, it would remit back
the _sumaria_ to the lower court, with the new written testimony
added to the _autos_ (documents in the case). These new witnesses
were never confronted with the accused, and might never be seen by
him, and