The theory of relapse was evidently giving way. Simancas tells us that, although supported by high authorities, it is cruel and false and not founded in law; the fugitive is impenitent, not relapsed; if he returns or is captured he is to be heard, and if prepared to obey the Church, his flight only deserves an increase of penalty.[269] How rapidly the ancient severity was disappearing is manifested by a case in Valencia, in 1570. Pedro Luis Verga was prosecuted for Protestantism on a vague accusation that, when studying in Paris in 1555, he had consorted with the dreaded Juan Pérez and had shared his opinions, for which he was reconciled and sentenced not to leave the kingdom. He disobeyed and, in 1570, he was heard of in Genoa, giving utterance to heretical opinions. Now this was a case of relapse, as well as of non-fulfilment of penance, but he was prosecuted for contumacy as a simple fugitive.[270] It was an evidence that the old rule had become obsolete when inquisitors sometimes prescribed in their sentences that the penance was to be performed under pain of impenitent relapse, as in the case of Juan Franco, condemned at Toledo, in 1570, to eight years of galleys for Protestantism, and of Juan Cote, by the same tribunal, in 1615, to irremissible perpetual prison for the same heresy.[271] Towards the middle of the seventeenth century, Alberghini gives the various opinions held on the subject, and concludes that that of Simancas was commonly accepted.[272] Cases of non-fulfilment were not infrequent for, as we shall see, the discipline of the penitential prisons was exceedingly lax; any penitent could absent himself and then throw off the sanbenito, which was the customary accompaniment of imprisonment, but, although this was canonically relapse, such cases were treated with what in those days might be considered as mercy. Thus Diego González, reconciled for Judaism at Valladolid, in 1644, and condemned to prison and habit, was recognized in 1645, at Medina de Rioseco, without the sanbenito. On being tried for this, the consulta de fe was not unanimous and the Suprema sentenced him to a hundred lashes.[273] It was the same with sentences of exile. In 1667, at Toledo, Francisco López Rodríguez, who had been reconciled in 1665 and had already been prosecuted for non-fulfilment of penance, was tried for doing so again, and was condemned only to a hundred lashes and two years more of exile. So in 1669, Juan López Peatin, for infraction of exile, had only two years added to the original term.[274]