Sobre el robo de la cruz del Santo Niño de Cebú por un sacristán, esclavo del convento. 1625.

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