UNIT 3 Rizal’s Life: Trial, Exile and Death
Lesson 5 – Dr. Jose P. Rizal’s “Trial”
The trial of Dr. Jose P. Rizal brings courage and patriotism to light. With dignity, Rizal faced
his trial and persisted in writing works that promoted justice and reform. He showed
incredible bravery by sticking to his ideals even though he knew the risks. Studying Rizal's
trial might encourage students to defend their morals and beliefs in the face of difficulty. It
imparts lessons about the value of honesty, the pursuit of justice, and the historical
significance of a single act of bravery.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this lesson, the students will be able to:
a. analyze Rizal’s Trial and its implications on Philippine history,
b. cite the importance of Rizal’s Trial and its relevance to peace in the Philippines
today; and
c. explain why Jose Rizal sentenced to death.
Pre-test
Directions: Choose the best answer. Write only the letter of your choice in the blank provided
each item.
UNIT 3 Rizal’s Life: Trial, Exile and Death
Lesson 6 – Dr. Jose P. Rizal’s “Trial”
The Preliminary Investigation
Jose Rizal's trial started on November 20, 1896, forty days before he was put to death, with a
preliminary inquiry. Francisco Olive was Colonel Juez de Instruccion, the investigator (The Trial
of Dr. Jose Rizal, 2022). In the legal preliminaries, the prisoner gave his name as Jose Rizal
Mercado y Alonzo, native of Calamba, Laguna, of age, single, never before subjected to criminal
prosecution. The questioning on the first day of investigation centered on two points: first,
whether Rizal knew certain individuals and what his relations were with them; second, Rizal's
subversive activities in Madrid and in the Philippines. The first name mentioned was Pio
Valenzuela. Did Rizal know Valenzuela, were they relatives, were they on friendly or unfriendly
terms, did Rizal consider him a suspicious character? Obviously, the authorities had known of
Valenzuela's visit to Rizal in Dapitan. They also knew him to be among the top leaders of the
Katipunan (Rizal-Reviewer - Reviewer for Rizal, 2023).
Pío Valenzuela was a Filipino physician and key figure in the Philippine Revolution, closely
associated with the Katipunan, a revolutionary society led by Andres Bonifacio. Valenzuela
traveled to Dapitan in June 1896 to ask José Rizal, who had been in exile at the time, for
assistance. Valenzuela and Rizal were friendly despite their lack of connection. Respecting
Valenzuela, Rizal voiced doubts during their meeting about the preparedness for an armed
insurrection and suggested concentrating on reforms and education instead. Rizal's cautious
approach nonetheless, Valenzuela's visit demonstrated how highly revolutionaries regarded
Rizal's viewpoint. Because of Valenzuela's significant involvement in the Katipunan and his
visitation to Rizal, the Spanish authorities investigated both men more closely (Cry of Pugad
Lawin, 2020).
Rizal answered that Don Pio had brought him a patient with eye trouble. Rizal had not known
Valenzuela before, but he considered him a friend in view of the courtesies he had shown to
members of Rizal's family during the voyage from Manila and so Don Pio had brought Rizal a
gift: a portable medicine chest. (One physician's gift to another, for Valenzuela was himself a
physician.) (Rizal-Reviewer - Reviewer for Rizal, 2023).
The investigator then asked the same question as in Pio Valenzuela's case, mentioning twenty-
one more names. Rizal was not familiar with the majority of the individuals mentioned. Most of
the time, he was neither intimately acquainted with them nor had even heard of them. When
asked if he knew Antonio Salazar, for example, Rizal said that he had purchased a pair of shoes
from a bazaar that was supposedly owned by a man by the name of Salazar, but he was unsure of
the identity of the individual (Bernad, 1998).
The Trial
Upon reaching Manila on November 3, Rizal was confined in Fort Santiago and on November 20
began to be subjected to a preliminary investigation, without benefit of counsel or the right to
confront his accusers. The probe produced a summation that found the case worthy of trial with
all possible speed; "it appears that the accused, Jose Rizal Mercado, is the principal organizer
and the very soul of the Philippine insurrection." The trial of Jose Rizal was conducted from the
prosecution view that he was associated with the Katipunan. On December 11 Rizal was
formally charged with the crime of rebellion and the crime of forming illegal associations
(Chapter 11 the. Arrest and Trial of Rizal, 2022).
The events surrounding José Rizal's 1896 arrest, detention, and trial serve as an acute example
of the injustices inherent to colonial administration. His prompt detention upon his return to
Manila, accompanied by an unrepresentative preliminary inquiry without the opportunity for
legal counsel or face-to-face questioning, exposes a clear contempt for basic legal norms. The
rushed pace of the trial and the presumption of Rizal's guilt point to a deliberate attempt on the
part of the Spanish government to crush opposition and hold onto power. To defend Rizal's
punishment and discourage others from opposing their power, they portrayed him as the
mastermind of the Philippine uprising. The extent to which authoritarian governments will go in
order suppress political dissent is demonstrated by this misuse of the judicial system.
The accused raised no objection on grounds of jurisdiction, pleaded not guilty to the crime of
rebellion, admitted only that he had written the statutes of the Liga to develop commerce and
industry, waived the right to make any further statements or to amend those he had already made
except to say that he had taken absolutely no part in politics since his banishment to Dapitan,
repudiated the testimony against him, and waived the right to secure further evidence or a further
confirmation of the oral evidence presented at the preliminary investigation (Jose Rizal’s Exile,
Trial, and Execution, 2024).
According to Escalante (2019), although the investigation had produced some important points,
there was no substantial proof. Investigations into Rizal's disagreements with Del Pilar were
used to prove that Rizal had planned with the Katipunan. Due to Marcelo del Pilar's TB death in
Barcelona a few months prior, Colonel Olive had more freedom in interpreting Del Pilar's ideas
and beliefs. With one conspirator dead, it was much easier to prove a conspiracy.
Rizal was brought to trial before a military court and was even denied the right of counsel, for he
was only permitted to choose his advocate from a list of strange Spanish officers who were
untrained in the law. Fortunately, one was Lieutenant Luis Taviel de Andrade, brother of his
bodyguard during his first homecoming. Andrade did all that intelligence and devotion could do
to get a fair trial for the stranger dependent on his chivalry. It took real courage to make such a
defense as he did in so unpopular a cause, but the result was never in doubt (Life and Works of
Rizal, 2021).
The story of José Rizal's military court trial presents a sad image of the abuses that were
common in colonial legal systems. The systematic prejudice against him is exemplified by the
denial of his right to legal representation and the demand that he selects an advocate from a
group of unknown Spanish officers who lack legal knowledge. But in the middle of this obvious
injustice, there is a ray of hope owing to the unexpected appointment of Lieutenant Luis Taviel
de Andrade, who was not only familiar with Rizal but also dedicated to making sure that the trial
is fair.
Alcocer stated that in crimes of this nature, which are founded on rousing the passions of the
people against the governmental powers, the main burden of guilt is on the man who awakens
dormant feelings and raises false hopes for the future. Alcocer was referring to Rizal's
propaganda activities in his books and other writings (Jeremie Ann Ho, 2014).
Three times had England tried to aid him, with the Consul General's protest against his
imprisonment without trial: when an Englishwoman sought an interview in Madrid with the
Queen Regent and on being refused waylaid the Queen's carriage in her drive to cry out, "Justice,
Madam, for poor Rizal"; and the third time when the greatest safeguard of Anglo-Saxon liberty
was invoked in his behalf (STORY of JOSE RIZAL CRAIG, n.d.).
The paragraph demonstrates the unrest and support that José Rizal received on a global scale
when he was imprisoned, especially from England. Even though Rizal was being held without
being given a chance to defend himself, the Consul General supported him diplomatically by
condemning his unfair detention. The broad outrage of Rizal's mistreatment is further
demonstrated by the brave efforts of an Englishwoman who sought an audience with the Queen
Regent in Madrid and even stopped her carriage to seek justice for him.
The preliminary investigation lasted for five days. Rizal was being informed of the charges and
questioned by the Judge Advocate but deprived of his right to confront those who testified
against him. There were testimonies and documentary evidences being presented. The
following documents served as the bases for the charges by the prosecution (Life and Works of
Rizal, 2021):
1. A letter of Antonio Luna
To Mariano Ponce, dated Madrid, October 16, 1888, showing Rizal’s connection with the
Filipino reform campaign in Spain.
2. A letter of Rizal
To his family, dated Madrid, August 20, 1890, stating that the deportations are good for they will
encourage the people to hate tyranny.
3. A letter from Marcelo H. del Pilar
To Deodato Arellano, dated Madrid, January 7, 1889, implicating Rizal in the Propaganda
campaign in Spain.
4. A poem entitled Kundiman
allegedly written by Rizal in Manila on September 12, 1891.
5. A letter of Carlos Oliver
To an unidentified person, dated B September 18, 1891, describing Rizal as the man to free the
Philippines from Spanish oppression.
6. A Masonic document
dated Manila, February 9, 1892 honoring Rizal for his patriotic services.
7. A letter signed Dimasalang
To Tenluz (Juan Zulueta’s pseudonym), dated Hongkong, dated May 24, 1892, stating that he
was preparing a safe refuge for Filipinos who may be persecuted by the Spanish authorities.
8. A letter of Dimasalang
To an unidentified committee, dated Hong Kong, June 1, 1892, soliciting the aid of committee
in the “patriotic work”.
9. An Anonymous and undated letter
To the Editor of Hongkong Telegraph, censuring the banishment of Rizal to Dapitan.
10. A letter of Ildefonso Laurel
To Rizal, dated Manila, September 3,1892, saying that the Filipino people look up to him (Rizal)
as their savior.
11. A letter of Rizal Segundo
, dated Manila, September 17, 1893,informing an unidentified correspondent of the arrest and
banishment of Doroteo Cortes and Ambrosio Salvador.
12. A letter of Marcelo H. del Pilar
To Don Juan Tenluz, dated Madrid, June 1, 1893 recommending the establishment of a special
organization, independent of Masonry, to help the cause of Filipino people.
13. Transcript of a speech of
Pingkian (Emilio Jacinto) in areunion of the Katipunan on July 23, 1893, in which the following
cry was uttered “Long live the Philippines! Long live Liberty! Long live Doctor Rizal! Unity!
14. Transcript of a speech of Tik-Tik (Jose Turiano Santiago) in the same Katipunan reunion,
wherein the Katipuneros shouted:“Long live the eminent Doctor Rizal! Death to the
oppressornation!”
15. A poem by Laong Laan entitled A Talisay, in which the author makes the Dapitan
schoolboys sing that they know how to fight for their rights.
The Dilemma of the Defense
Taviel de Andrade, who was probably aware of the widespread prejudice against the accused,
took a careful legal stance in his defense of Rizal. He mainly relied on a particular legal clause
that was taken from the Penal Code of Spain and applied to the Philippines (Rizal’s Trial, 2014).
This clause stated that punishments could only be applied in cases where guilt was proven by
certain methods, like eyewitness testimony, confessions, official records, expert opinions, or
convincing circumstantial evidence. Andrade contended that it was impossible to substantiate
any of these lines of evidence against Rizal.
Following is a summary of Rizal's own defense, collated from his memorandum on the 12th. His
oral argument of the 26th and his answers to Olive's interrogation are here contrasted with the
case for the prosecution as presented by Leon Ma. Guerrero:
1. Subversive Propaganda While in Madrid Rizal founded an association of Filipinos which
supported the subversive newspaper, La Solidaridad.
Rizal - It is false that I started the Spanish-Philippine Association; it was already established
when I moved to Madrid. The same is true of La Solidaridad, which Marcelo H. Del Pilar both
founded and has always edited. The sole purpose of (The Association) I established in Madrid
was to encourage the Filipinos residing there to live better moral lives, to attend classes, to
avoid taking on debt, etc. Marcelo H. Del Pilar was against my criticism of La Solidaridad's
activities. This demonstrates that I was never in charge of the paper's political (policy) content
(Final Reviewer, 2021).
2. Masonry - Rizal was one of the leaders of Philippine masonry and sent Pedro Serrano back to
the archipelago to organize lodges for the purpose of disseminating subversive propaganda.
Rizal - It is false that I instructed Serrano to bring masonry to the Philippines. Serrano was
more educated than me. The letters he later wrote to me while I was in Hong Kong serve as
evidence of this. wherein he called me Worshipful as though that were a wonderful thing. Since
when does an officer allow himself to elevate the Captain General, if I were the head? In
January or February of 1891, I departed from Madrid, and ever since... departed from Masonry.
I had nothing to do with Filipino Masonry (Escalante, 2019).
3. The Liga Rizal wrote the statutes of the Liga and sent Moises Salvador to the Philippines to
organize it, its purpose being to supply means for the attainment of the Philippine
independence. Upon his return to the Philippines in 1892 Rizal called a meeting in the house of
Doroteo Ongjungco at which he explained the need for the Liga and said more or less the
following: that he had found the Filipinos discouraged and without any aspirations of becoming
a free and self-respecting people, that consequently they were always at the mercy of the
abuses committed by the authorities, that through the Liga the arts, the industry, and
commerce would make progress, and that, once the country was prosperous and united, it
would attain its own freedom and even independence.
Rizal - I acknowledge that, based on my repeated remarks, I might have said what is being
reported that I did in Ongjungco's residence, but I'm not sure. It is true that I drafted the Liga's
statutes at Basa's request, and that Manila received them with the intention of promoting the
organization's unification and the growth of trade and industry. However, I did not organize the
gathering at Ongjungco's (whom I do not know) home. How could I call somebody I didn't know
to meet at someone else's place who was just as unknown to me? The Liga never got going
because, following my exile, it disbanded after the first meeting (Paula Marie Llido, 2017).
4. The Katipunan Rizal was the honorary president of the Katipunan, which was the same thing
as the Liga and whose purposes were to proclaim the independence of the Philippines, make
Rizal supreme leader, and kill the Spaniards. His photograph was displayed in the katipunan's
headquarters. Shortly before the insurrection, the Katipunan had sent Pio Valenzuela to Rizal in
Dapitan to seek his decision, as supreme leader, on the proposed rebellion and the plan of
seeking aid from Japan.
Rizal - I haven't interacted with or heard from the Katipunan, and I have no knowledge of them.
Andres Bonifacio is not even a name I am familiar with. It would have been easy to get a picture
of me from Madrid. I cannot express how unfair it is to me; I did not give permission for my
name to be used. I was completely out of politics from July 6, 1892, until July 1, 1896. Pio
Valenzuela did not warn me about an upcoming rebellion until July 1, 1896, and I urged against
it. It has been claimed that I was the leader. If I was merely told to leave and not included in the
planning process, what sort of leader would I be? If my followers say yes when I say no, what
sort of leader am I?... In addition, when the mutiny started, I was inaccessible on the Castilla, so
I freely offered the Governor General my assistance in putting down the uprising—something I
had never done before (Escalante, 2019).
The Manifest
To make the rebels fearful, a swift trial was required. Although there was no need for such hurry
when handling the failed revolt in Manila, the Cavite insurgents' success was quickly turning the
situation into a true revolution, far different from Bonifacio's first uprising. The consequences of
Cavite's actions sent the administration into a downward spiral, forcing it to strike back with
great force. Daily executions and arrests followed, most of the victims being small-time
politicians with little power. The authorities in Manila had to resort to their old strategy of
trying to instill fear because of the panic that the uprising had caused. Prisons were bursting at
the seams with prisoners, and public executions were held in order to terrify the population (The
Trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, 2022).
Though complex, Rizal's "Manifesto to Fellow Filipinos" had a clear message: he disassociated
himself from Bonifacio and the Katipunan. The manifesto affirmed the legitimacy of revolution
and Philippine nationalism in an understated manner, despite its length. Rizal made it clear that
his name had been exploited without his permission and that he was not a part of the current
uprising. But the manifesto was rejected by the Spanish government, who only said it was
delayed and did not explicitly condemn the rebellion. Rizal's chances for the future declined
while he was on trial since Aguinaldo's forces were winning battles against Spanish troops who
had superior equipment.
Double Jeopardy
What was anomalous about the trial of Jose Rizal was that it violated a basic tenet of justice: the
prohibition on double jeopardy, which stipulates that nobody can be made to face charges on
which he has already been tried and found innocent, or found guilty and already penalized.
In July 1892 Rizal had been arrested on the charges of being anti-Spanish because of his anti-
church writings, of having smuggled to Manila anti-friar leaflets, and of having dedicated his
second novel to three traitor priests-all these accusations being prompted by the suspicion that he
was going around the country organizing Masonic Lodges and other illegal associations like the
La Liga Filipina (Escalante, 2019).
It is true that he was not convicted for these allegations, which added to the injustice of his case
because he was found guilty and given a deportation sentence without being given the
opportunity to defend himself. He was consequently made to serve four years in prison at
Dapitan. He was then retried in December 1896 on allegations that he was an anti-Spanish
author, that he had smuggled anti-friar propaganda into Manila, that he had dedicated a book to
the three traitor priests, and that he had established illegal associations.
His being thus exposed to double jeopardy was sensed by his counsel, Lieutenant Taviel de
Andrade, who pointed out that, aside from the charge of being involved in the Katipunan (based
on the testimonies of Katipuneros wanting to save their own necks), the case against Rizal
evolved around his past life, his past works and writings, and his past record as reformer-all of
which were already notorious long before but had not been considered cause enough for hanging
him (Rizal Works 2022).
References
Bernad, M. A. (1998). The Trial of Rizal. Philippine Studies, 46(1), 46–72.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42633622
Chapter 11 The Arrest and Trial of Rizal. (2022). Studocu; Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/bicol-university/bachelor-of-elementary-
education/chapter-11-the-arrest-and-trial-of-rizal/31594995
Escalante, R. (2019, December 26). Vol. 8, No. 3, Rene ESCALANTE. CSEAS Journal, Southeast
Asian Studies. https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/
Grace, D. (2023, December 6). BLAST FROM THE PAST: DR. JOSE RIZAL’S HISTORIC
TRIAL AND MARTYRDOM: A GLIMPSE INTO FILIPINO HISTORY ON DECEMBER
6, 1896. Maharlika NuMedia. https://maharlika.tv/blast-from-the-past-dr-jose-rizals-
historic-trial-and-martyrdom-a-glimpse-into-filipino-history-on-december-6-1896/
Jeremie Ann Ho. (2014, November 16). The trial and martyrdom of rizal.
https://www.slideshare.net/rojoismycolor/the-trial-and-martyrdom-of-rizal
Jose Rizal’s Exile, Trial, and Execution. (2024, March 4). SlideShare.
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/jose-rizals-exile-trial-and-execution/266618869 z
Paula Marie Llido. (2017, October 8). Chapter 21: Jose Rizal’s Second Homecoming and La
Liga Filipina. https://www.slideshare.net/user86944/chapter-21-jose-rizals-second-
homecoming-and-la-liga-filipina
Life and Works of Rizal. (2021). Studocu; Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/universidad-de-manila/the-life-and-works-of-
rizal/life-and-works-of-rizal/33731828
Paula Marie Llido. (2017, October 8). Chapter 21: Jose Rizal’s Second Homecoming and La
Liga Filipina. https://www.slideshare.net/user86944/chapter-21-jose-rizals-second-
homecoming-and-la-liga-filipina
Rizal-Reviewer - Reviewer for Rizal. (2023). Studocu; Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/batangas-state-university/bs-psychology/rizal-
reviewer-reviewer-for-rizal/82722786
Rizal Works.pptx. (2022, September 19). SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/rizal-
workspptx/253039432
Rizal’s Trial. (2014, July 27). Dimasalang Laong Laan.
https://dimasalanglaonglaan.wordpress.com/rizals-trial/
STORY OF JOSE RIZAL CRAIG. (n.d.).
https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10524/59385/1/StoryOfJoseRizal.pdf
The Trial of Dr. Jose Rizal. (2022). Studocu; Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/systems-plus-college-foundation/the-life-and-
works-of-rizal/the-trial-of-dr-jose-rizal/49126399
Trial of Rizal by Spanish military court began December 6, 1896. (2011, December 6). The
Kahimyang Project. https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/796/today-in-philippine-
history-december-6-1896-the-trial-of-dr-jose-rizal-by-a-spanish-military-court-for-
sedition-rebellion-and-conspiracy-began
to, C. (2014). Andrés Bonifacio. Military Wiki; Fandom, Inc. https://military-
history.fandom.com/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Bonifacio
