Antonio Ruiz de Castañeda’s Trial in the Conspiracy of 1566 (Part 3 of 3)

Apr 16
6 min read

The witnesses summoned in Antonio’s defense verified his family background. He was the son of Juan Ruiz de Alanís who had faithfully served His Majesty in the conquest of New Spain, and Antonio and Leonor Bello were cousins, as Antonio’s mother Leonor de Castañeda was the sister of Leonor’s mother Gracia Iñiguez de Valdosera (aka Valdeosera). Many of the witnesses had known both sisters since they had arrived from Spain with their other siblings. Regarding the conspiracy, several of the witnesses attested how the general public had been shocked by the arrest and execution of Gil González as they did not consider him capable of participating in such a scheme. A couple of witnesses had been close enough to the execution platform to hear the priest pronounce Gil’s innocence, but the details of some of their accounts varied. Several witnesses also confirmed that Antonio spent very little time in Mexico City as he was accustomed to stay at his hacienda for long periods of time, which suggested he could not have been complicit in the plot. Doctor Ceynos could not recall whether or not Antonio had come to offer his service to His Majesty, but Francisco de Velasco confirmed he had indeed done so. After several days, Antonio had asked Francisco for license to return to his hacienda, which Francisco granted.

Fray Domingo de Salazar’s testimony was convoluted and sought to obscure the meaning of what he had said on the day of the execution. He was clearly aware that any misstatement could place himself in legal jeopardy. He claimed he had not stated Gil González was innocent—for he did not know if this were the case—but rather, before the sentence was carried out, he approached him and earnestly exhorted him, telling him that if he harbored any resentment toward anyone, or had received any offense or injury, he should forgive it all, so that God might forgive him. To this, the condemned man replied, indeed, he did forgive, and he asked for forgiveness from all whom he might have offended.

Furthermore, while standing upon the scaffold, before Gil was beheaded, the priest had risen to his feet and, in a loud voice, proclaimed the words cited by the other witnesses. He had done so because it had occurred to him, perhaps some of the witnesses who had testified against Gil had said more than they actually knew or might have falsely accused Gil, either wholly or in part—and so, to ensure that whoever had done or said such things would not fail to restore the condemned man’s honor, he spoke out. Afterward, the priest understood that many people in the city might interpret the words he had spoken to mean that Gil was innocent; however, when those who came to inquire of him asked about the matter, he told them, in cases of doubt, one must always presume that justice prevails. Therefore, he believed Antonio was in error and had let himself be deceived.

On December 24th, Antonio’s attorney presented a petition asking for his client to be moved from the jail to house arrest as he was very ill with fever and a headache. The petition was granted, and the judges also allowed him to leave home to attend mass, up until the feast of the three kings. On 9 January 1568, his attorney presented another petition stating that his client continued to be ill and requested an extension of his house arrest for another 30 days, but the petition was denied and Antonio returned to the court’s prison.

On January 12th, the prosecutor presented his case, portraying Antonio and his wife as close relatives and known associates of Gil González de Ávila—who in their actions and words had defended the guilty parties in repudiation of justice. On the day of Gil’s execution, Antonio had admitted to speaking the words of which he was accused, threats directed at the audiencia real. Furthermore, Antonio and his wife were close and intimate friends of the marqués and his brothers, frequently visiting their homes and continuing to visit them even after their imprisonment. By testifying in defense of the Ávila brothers, Antonio had perjured himself and had sought to exonerate the guilty. The accused continued in this fallacy by continuing to question the veracity of the witnesses who had testified against the Ávilas. The prosecutor alluded to having additional evidence of other scandalous things Antonio had said at his encomienda of Tehuacán and other places. On one occasion, he alleged Antonio had taken refuge in a monastery out of fear of being arrested, which suggested he acknowledge his guilt. Lastly, as an encomendero who had such a close association with the Ávilas, it was impossible to believe that he was not expected to take part in the rebellion. The prosecutor closed by asking for Antonio to be subjected to cruel and rigorous torture to reveal the truth about these matters.

On January 14th, Antonio’s attorney asked for the officials to issue their judgment since his client was very ill. On January 16th, the prosecutor asked for a ten-day extension to examine witnesses, but the judges denied his request as they were ready to issue a sentence without additional evidence. They found Antonio guilty, sentencing him to five years of exile from Mexico City at a distance of five leagues and a 600-ducat fine. Both parties immediately appealed, with the defense asking for his exoneration and the prosecutor asking for the imposition of the death penalty and confiscation of all his property. On February 10th, the judges issued their final judgment, revising Antonio’s sentence to four years of exile from Mexico City (two years mandatory, two years at the discretion of the audiencia) and a 400-ducat fine. In addition to the reduced sentence, he was allowed to keep his encomienda of Tehuacán.

We do not know where Antonio spent his period of exile or if his family joined him there. Perhaps he returned to his estancias in Guanajuato, although the only records I have found for him after the trial indicate he was in the vicinity of Puebla de los Ángeles. In April 1569, Antonio was witness to the sale of land in the pueblo of Huejotzingo near Puebla. Curiously, the interpreter for the transaction (which was between a native of the pueblo and a Spaniard named Lucas Pérez Maldonado) was Miguel Iñiguez de Castañeda—possibly Antonio’s uncle given the combination of last names. By 13 January 1571, Antonio was no longer in exile, as on that day he presented a petition to the audiencia in Mexico City asking for financial support given the reduced income from his encomienda.

In January 1572, he and Antonia were residing in the pueblo of Huejotzingo, according to a power of attorney the couple executed there (although they still declared themselves to be vecinos of Mexico City). In 1573, Antonio’s encomienda was reassigned to the Spanish Crown, but appears to be unrelated to his criminal trial. Antonio and Antonia were still living in Huejotzingo in 1577 when they signed an obligation of payment, together with their son Alonso de Benavides, in favor of Juan del Hierro Padilla for 800 cattle hides loaded onto a ship at the port of San Juan de Ulúa. Antonio passed away before 28 July 1584 when Antonio de Ordaz Villagómez, vecino of Puebla de los Ángeles filed a lawsuit against his widow Antonia for 690 pesos that he was owed.