The conspiracy of 1566 in New Spain (Part 5)
- Steven Perez
- 16 hours ago
- 7 min read
On 9 January 1568 (the same day the Quesada brothers were executed), the prosecutor Francisco de Sande presented the summary of his evidence against Antonio de Carvajal to Muñoz and Carrillo. He argued that Antonio was an active and knowing participant in the conspiracy—not based on any explicit actions or evidence of rebellion—but on his pattern of conduct during the investigation: concealment, coordination with other suspects, manipulation of testimony, and deliberate efforts to weaken the prosecution.
One of the prosecutor’s chief allegations was that Antonio actively favored the marqués by describing the rebellion as either nonexistent or the product of envy and hatred by the marqués’s enemies. The secretive communications he had with Baltazar de Aguilar and Juan de Valdivieso proved that he knew something about what was going on with the conspiracy but failed to report it immediately to the oidores of the audiencia, as he would have been obligated to do. Furthermore, he acted in coordination with Juan de Valdivieso on their testimony regarding Baltazar de Aguilar and attempted to discredit Agustín de Villanueva (key witness for the prosecution) by portraying his actions as unjust or improper. The prosecutor closed by asking for Antonio to be found guilty and for him to be subjected to torture so that he would confess.
That same day, Antonio’s attorney asked for judicial copies of the confessions of the Quesada brothers and on January 12th, presented them as exculpatory evidence. The Quesada brothers’ statements revealed that they had named Antonio (and Juan de Valdivieso) as conspirators only because Alonso de Ávila had told them that they were involved. However, they understood that Alonso had said this in order to make it appear as though the rebellion was widely supported—and that they had never seen, spoken with, or dealt in any matter whatsoever with either of them with regard to the uprising.
The attorney then argued that Antonio was not a conspirator, but rather, a law-abiding witness acting in good faith, whose only role was to testify truthfully about what he knew. He consistently reframed any potentially incriminating conduct as ordinary, innocent behavior, attacking the prosecutor’s inferences rather than disputing the facts. Antonio was under no obligation to prove that Baltazar de Aguilar was being forced to denounce the marqués by his family—he simply reported what he knew. If any witness were held to such a high standard, then legal proceedings would go on endlessly. Furthermore, there were no witnesses who contradicted any of the statements that Antonio had made. While he conceded that Antonio had spoken with Baltazar about the uprising, the rebellion by that point was already publicly known, and expressing curiosity and seeking information about current events did not prove any criminal intent. The most powerful argument was that many convicted conspirators had been interrogated and executed, and none of these had provided any evidence that Antonio had been involved.
On January 15th, Muñoz and Carrillo issued their ruling—finding Antonio guilty as charged. They sentenced him to perpetual banishment from the Indies under penalty of death if he should violate it. They instructed him to embark for Spain on the first fleet departing New Spain with guards paid for at his expense. They also fined him 2,000 ducats, half of which would go to the royal treasury and the other half for court costs. On January 19th, the prosecutor asked for a much harsher sentence given the crime was treason against His Majesty. He asked for Antonio to be executed and his property forfeited, including his title of regidor and his encomienda. He added that Antonio should be rigorously tortured, expressing frustration that he had requested this already, but it had not been carried out.
Meanwhile, on January 22nd, Antonio’s attorney filed an appeal asking for the sentence to be revoked. His chief argument was that the statements of the Quesada brothers had exonerated his client. He also appealed to the judges’ sympathy, describing a sentence of permanent banishment as unduly harsh given the lack of evidence, and also because Antonio was the sole supporter of a large family that depended on him for their survival—four sisters yet to be married, his stepmother, his wife and three small children (one of which had been born after Antonio had been imprisoned).
Antonio and his attorney drafted a set of questions with the intent of calling more witnesses, seeking to corroborate or discredit witness testimony. One question asked witnesses for evidence that Baltazar de Aguilar had stated, after the execution of the Quesada brothers, that he never knew or imagined that Antonio was ever involved in the conspiracy. Another asked for evidence that the Quesada brothers on the day of their execution had admitted that because their interrogations had been very long, they had said some things that the interrogators had wanted them to say and asked for forgiveness of those who they had testified against. Antonio’s attorney summoned several more witnesses to provide statements on these points (some of which had already testified, including Leonel de Cervantes and Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes). Many of the witnesses also spoke about Antonio’s family, several of them stating that they had been present at the wedding of Antonio and María and at the funeral of the elder Antonio de Carvajal.
On January 28th, Muñoz and Carrillo reaffirmed that Antonio was guilty as charged. However, they revised his sentence to banishment of at least ten leagues from Mexico City for ten years (six years mandatory, four years discretionary, subject to judicial review) under penalty of permanent banishment from the Indies if he should violate these terms; and his fine was increased from 2,000 ducats to 3,000 ducats, to be paid within two days. Antonio’s attorney appealed the terms of payment and asked for his client to be given a reasonable amount of time to pay such a large sum, saying that Antonio did not have the resources to make the payment given the cost of his trial and his need to prepare for his banishment. The case ends there and it is not clear how the judges responded. Remarkably, it appears that Antonio was allowed to retain the encomienda of Zacatlán and his title of regidor, despite his banishment from Mexico City.
By today’s legal standards, the outcome seems exceptionally harsh given the thin evidence against Antonio, particularly since most of it was hearsay. However, he fared far better than many others who were convicted and punished, such as:
Cristóbal de Oñate, who on January 7th was hanged, drawn and quartered.
Baltazar de Aguilar, who on January 7th was sentenced to serve ten years of hard labor in the galleys without pay, permanent banishment from the Indies and forfeiture of his encomienda. Sent as a prisoner to Spain, he ratified his first testimony against the marqués, for which he was pardoned.
Pedro Gómez de Cáceres (Antonio’s brother-in-law), who on January 16th was sentenced to permanent banishment from the Indies and a fine of 1,000 ducats.
Bernardino Pacheco de Bocanegra, who on January 19th, was condemned to be beheaded and to forfeit his property. However, this sentence was revised on January 28th to ten years of hard labor in the galleys without pay, permanent banishment from the Indies and Spain, and a 1,000 ducat fine.
Antonio’s cousin Juan de Valdivieso was originally sentenced on January 15th to permanent banishment from the Indies and a fine of 1,000 ducats. However, like Antonio, this sentence was later modified to ten years of banishment from Mexico City (ten leagues distance), and his fine was increased to 1,500 ducats.
Beatriz de Andrada, the aunt of Alonso and Agustín de Villanueva (and wife of the late viceroy’s younger brother Francisco de Velasco) wrote to the king on 15 March 1568 asking for him to reward them for their service, for they had been the first to convince their cousin Baltazar de Aguilar to denounce the conspiracy to the oidores. It is unknown whether or not they received any special favors or privileges, but the case illustrates how different factions attempted to take advantage of the outcome of the trials.
Antonio and his family relocated to their encomienda of Zacatlán during their exile from Mexico City. The following year, Antonio and his wife María de Sosa granted a ranch in the jurisdiction of Metepeque (Metepec) to his sister Catalina de Carvajal as dowry for her marriage to Gonzalo Gomez de Cervantes (my 13x-great-grandparents). This transaction was executed on 23 February 1569 in Zacatlán before royal scribe Martín Alonso. Clearly, the family still had financial resources and property, even after accounting for the penalties assessed by the royal treasury for Antonio’s conviction.
The Carvajal family was eventually able to restore its position in Mexico City society, perhaps through ties of marriage to other prominent families such as the Cervantes. On 14 March 1576, eight years after his conviction, Antonio was named once again as a regidor and resident of Mexico City in a document that also mentioned his stepmother María de Olid as the owner of a ranch in the jurisdiction of Tacuba. In 1622, Antonio’s son Antonio de Carvajal y Tapia was the alcalde mayor of Tepeaca and an alcalde ordinario of Mexico City (and also still held the encomienda of Zacatlán). In 1659, the viceroy, the Duke of Alburquerque, confirmed the rights of the encomienda to a Carvajal descendent, Andres de Carvajal y Tapia, and allowed him to name a successor to it. It’s a remarkable story of resilience—despite having a family member convicted for treason against the king, the Carvajal family legacy endured.
Sources:
Isabel Arenas Frutos and Purificación Pérez Zarandieta, “El primero criollismo en la conspiración de Martín Cortés,” en Felipe II y el oficio de rey: la fragua de un imperio (Madrid: Ediciones Puertollano, 2001).
Guillermo Porras Muñoz, El gobierno de la ciudad de México en el siglo XVI, "Los alcaldes ordinarios," UNAM, 1982.
Archivo General de Indias
Proceso contra Antonio de Carvajal: rebelión Nueva España
Patronato, 220, R. 1
Averiguacón sobre sublevados: rebelión de Nueva España
Patronato, 203, R.5
Inventario de bienes: Carvajal y Tapia, Antonio de
Mexico, 260, N. 42
Confirmación de encomienda de Zacatlán
Mexico, 242B, N. 71
Archivo General de la Nación, Ramo de Tierras, V. 3316-3318, "Mexico records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSDP-Z3ZF-P?view=explore : Dec 16, 2025), image 38 of 284; Image Group Number: 007986557
Archivo General de la Nación, Ramo de Tierra, V. 2999-3000, "Mexico records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSD2-5S5N-K?view=explore : Dec 16, 2025), image 372 of 396; Image Group Number: 007985486
Thank you for sharing the study.