In continuation to Miss Galigao’s report, I was compelled to discussed to you the “after the

Alcoser’s Speech, Rizal’s Trial and His Alleged Guilt, and lastly, Rizal’s Last Remaining Hours
on Earth.
In after the Alcoser’s Speech Taviel de Andrade argued that Rizal was not guilty of the crime
charged him. He said that penalties can only be imposed on an accused through any of the
following means: ocular inspection, confession of the accused, credible witnesses, expert
opinion, official's documentation or conclusive evidences.
Taviel de Andrade took the floor to present his defense of Rizal. Taviel de Andrade’s defense
was based on the rule of evidence and the law applying the Penal Code of Spain in the
Philippines. Believing that the prosecution was biased on Rizal, he defended Rizal by saying
that penalties can only be imposed on an accused through any of the following means: ocular
inspection; confession of the accused; credible witnesses; expert opinion; official’s
documentation or conclusive evidences (Guerrero, 1998). As none of these conditions existed,
Rizal was not guilty of the crime charged him. Moreover, as oral testimonies used against Rizal
were given by those who were interested in ascribing leadership of the revolution to Rizal, these
were biased and should not be used against the accused.

After Taviel de Andrade’s brilliant defense, Rizal was asked by the judge advocate whether he
had something to add to what his counsel had presented. Rizal stood up and presented his own
brief (Zuueta, 2004; Guerrero, 1998).
So as, what you can see on your screen he states that..
1. I am not guilty 0000of rebellion as I even advised Dr. Pio Valenzuela in Dapitan not to rise in
revolution;
2. The revolutionists used by name without my knowledge. If I were guilty, I could have escape
from Singapore;
3. If I had hand in the Katipunan revolution, I could have escaped Dapitan and should have not
built a house there;
4. If I were the chief of the revolution, why did they not consult me on their plans?
5. I was not the founder of La Solidaridad and the Association Hispano-Filipino;
6. I had nothing to do with the introduction of masonry in the Philippines. Serrano had a higher
degree than I had. If I were the head, since when does an officer permit himself to be promoted
to a captain general?
7. The La Liga Filipina did not live long. It died a natural death after my banishment to Dapitan;
8. If the La Liga was re-organized nine months later, I was totally unaware of it;
9. It was true that I wrote the statutes of the La Liga. The La Liga however, is a civic association
whose purpose are unity and development of commerce and industry;
10. While it was true that there were some bitter statements in my letters, it was because they
were written when my family was being persecuted, being disposed of their houses and lands,
and my brother and brother-in-law were rusticated without due process of law;
11. It was not true that the revolution was inspired in one of my speeches at the house of
Doroteo Onjungco, as alleged by the witnesses who I would like to confront. My friends knew
very well about my vehement opposition to an armed rebellion;

12. Why did the Katipunan send an emissary to in Dapitan, who was a total stranger to me? Because
those who knew me were cognizant that I would never sanction any violent movement?

13. My life in Dapitan had been exemplary, as evidenced by my productive activities for the welfare of
the people. Even the politico-military commanders and missionary priests could attest to this.

Mao to sija ang mga gipang engun ni rizal during hearing.

Going to the next slide we have Rizal’s Trial and His Alleged Guilt-

Rizal’s trial was a clear case of mistrial – a very clear confirmation of the injustice of the Spanish Regime
(Zaide&Zaide, 1999). It was a deliberate effort to condemn Rizal to death for the following reasons:

1. Rizal was a civilian but was tried by a military tribunal;

2. Rizal was already condemned guilty even before the trial.

3. All allegations against Rizal were accepted by the court nut not the

arguments and evidence in his favor;

4. Rizal was not allowed to confront witnesses against him nor his counsel to

cross-examine them; and

5. Evidences to convict Rizal did not have any bearing on his alleged

commission of the complex crime of rebellion.

going to the next slide we have Rizal’s message to his countrymen.

My Countrymen:

“On my return from Spain, I learned that my name had been used as a war cry

among some who were in arms. The news painfully surprised me, but believing it was
all over, I kept silent over what I considered irremediable. Now I hear rumors that the

disturbances continue, and lest any persons should still go on using my name in bad

or good faith, to remedy this abuse and to undeceive the unwary. I hasten to address

you these lines so that the truth may be known.

From the beginning, when I had news of what was being planned, I opposed it, fought

it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility. This is the truth and witnesses to my

words are still living. I was convinced that the idea was highly absurd and, what was

worse, would bring great suffering. I did more. When later, in spite of my counsels, the

movement broke out. I spontaneously offered not only my services, but my life, even

my name so that they might use them in the manner they was fir to suppress the

rebellion, for convinced of the evils that would befall them. I considered myself

fortunate of, at any sacrifice. I could prevent such useless misfortunes. This is equally

of record.

Lastly,

10. Rizal’s Last Remaining Hours on Earth-

The verdict sentence of death sentence was read to Rizal on December 29, 1896 (Romero, 1978). At the
outset, Rizal refused to sign it owing to his innocence and objection to his being labeled as a Chinese
mestizo. Later, realizing that the law required it, he affixed his signature on the notification of the court’s

decision. While busy attending to his visitors, he took time to write his last letter to his best friend

and confidante, Blumentritt. The letter runs this way (National Commission, 1962). When you receive
this letter, I shall be dead. I shall be shot tomorrow at seven o’clock, but I am innocent of the crime of
rebellion. I am going to die with a clear conscience. Farewell my best, my dearest friend, and never think
ill of me. Rizal’s Mi Ultimo Adios was the longest, untitled poem written on December 29, 1896.
According to Coates (1968), this poem is remarkable for it achieves four separate purposes:

*It is a farewell

*It is an appeal to the

Filipinos, not for him

*It is Rizal’s last will and

testament

* It is Rizal’s autobiography