Local government in the Philippine islands,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PRE-SPANISH PERIOD

21

presided over the court. He first attempted to reconcile
the parties to a suit in order to avoid further court proceedings. If they failed to make up for their differences,
the trial proceeded; and the parties had to abide by the
decision of the court. In cases of murder, distinctions
were made on the basis of the rank to which the murdered or the murderer belonged. In cases of theft, if more
than one person were held under suspicion, a canonical
was no other judge than the said chief, with the assistance of some
old men of the same barangay. With them the suit was determined
in the following form: They had the opponents summoned, and
endeavored to have them come to an agreement. But if they would
not agree, then an oath was administered to each one, to the effect
that he would abide by what was determined and done. Then they
called for witnesses, and examined summarily. If the proof was
equal (on both sides), the difference was split; but, if it were unequal, the sentence was given in favor of the one who conquered. If
the one who was defeated resisted, the judge made himself a party
to the cause, and all of them at once attacked with the armed hand
the one defeated, and execution to the required amount was levied
upon him. The judge received the larger share of this amount, and
some was paid to the witnesses of the one who won the suit, while
the poor litigant received the least. In criminal causes, there were
wide distinctions made because of the rank of the murderer and the
slain; and if the latter were a chief all his kinsmen went to hunt
for the murderer and his relatives and both sides engaged in war,
until mediators undertook to declare the quantity of gold due for
that murder, in accordance with the appraisals which the old men
said ought to be paid according to their custom. One-half of that
amount belonged to the chief, and the other half was divided among
the wife, children, and relatives of the deceased.
"In a matter of theft, if the crime were proved, but not the
criminal, and more than one person was suspected, a canonical clearance from guilt had to be made in the following form: First, they
obliged each person to put in a heap a bundle of cloth, leaves, or
anything else that they wished, in which they might discover the
article stolen. If the article stolen was found in the heap, at the
end of this effort, then the suit ceased; if not, one of the three
methods was tried: First, they were placed in the part of the
river where it is deepest, each one with his wooden spear in his
hand. Then at the same time they were all to be plunged under the
water, for all are equal in this and he who came out first was regarded as the criminal. Consequently, many let themselves drown