The audiencia had appellate jurisdiction over all residents of the colony, both natives and Spaniards. All crimes committed within five leagues of the city of Manila were ordered to be tried by the oidores in first instance, [196] but unless they were of extraordinary importance, special investigators, usually alcaldes mayores or alcaldes ordinarios, were delegated to try them in the name of the audiencia. [197] As already stated, most of the criminal cases arising in the colony were tried in first instance in the provinces by the alcaldes mayores. Cases appealed to the audiencia were reviewed in that tribunal. The trial consisted of an examination of the summary or abstract of the case as it was originally tried by the lower judge and, if errors were found to exist, the decision was either reversed or the case was remanded to the judge who first had tried the case, for second trial. [198] The audiencia did not try the case with the defendant present. It merely reviewed the proceedings of the lower judge. Criminal cases were not ordinarily appealable to the Council of the Indies. The procedure in criminal cases was generally so similar to that already described that it is unnecessary to give any illustration of the audiencia's criminal jurisdiction. Most of the cases that eventually reached the audiencia involved Spaniards, native caciques, and half-castes. Natives who were charged with robbery, murder, and crimes of a depraved nature were usually of a class unable to finance appeals to the audiencia. This fact probably accounts for the scarcity of criminal cases appealed during the first two centuries of the audiencia's existence. [199] However, the reforms of the nineteenth century brought an increased number of cases into the audiencia by systematizing the administration of justice, differentiating the judgeships from administrative offices, and providing for greater facility of appeal. [200] It is probable that in criminal as well as in civil cases, Spaniards derived considerable benefit from the fact that the audiencia was composed of magistrates of their own nationality. High officials, no doubt, escaped the consequences of their misdeeds more easily than did men of more modest social and political attainments. This is shown by the well-known case of the murder by Governor Fajardo of his wife on July 21, 1621; this came up before an audiencia which was composed of judges who were largely under the governor's domination. The tribunal gave the matter a cursory investigation, after which the governor was allowed to go unpunished. [201] We shall see that proceedings were different, however, when officials under investigation were charged with offenses against the government. The residencia, which dealt with such charges, was a pitiless form of inquisition in which the officiating magistrate was in duty bound to find his victim guilty, if possible.