The regent fined him 40,000 pesos outright and, moreover, he was condemned to pay into the royal treasury an additional fine of 16,000 pesos to cover certain illegitimate profits made through granting unlawful trading concessions to an Armenian merchant. This sentence was not executed immediately, as it had to be confirmed by the Council of the Indies. On review of the findings and recommendations of the regent, the Council declared that since the proceedings at the trial of Marquina had been irregular and the governor had already suffered the consequences of his own misdeeds, the fine imposed by the judge of the residencia in Manila might be reduced to 2000 pesos with costs of trial. Marquina on October 12, 1797, asked to be excused from the payment of the 2000 pesos, but the Council denied his petition, declaring that he had been treated with great consideration and mercy and that nothing more could be done in his behalf, especially since he had not been adjudged innocent of the charges which had been made against him. [265] Marquina's trial illustrates all the characteristics, the delays, terrors, and ramifications of a typical residencia of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Continued complaints against him caused Marquina's residencia to be taken before the expiration of his official term. The regent of the audiencia was commissioned by the court to conduct the investigation because Marquina's successor had not arrived. That magistrate was prejudiced against Marquina on account of having witnessed the governor's continual malfeasance in office. He was unable to conduct an impartial investigation, and the audiencia, likewise prejudiced, would not intervene in behalf of the ex-governor. The wrongs done to Marquina in his trial were so patent that the Council of the Indies ordered a new hearing. A severe sentence was finally passed by the judge in Manila, but it was modified by the Council of the Indies through considerations of justice. The residencia occupied ten years, and during the greater part of that time the ex-governor remained in exile--a victim of his own misdeeds, the faulty residencia system, and the hostility of the audiencia. The customary severity of the residencia was only mitigated in this case by the presence of an impartial governor, who, unlike most governors whose desire was to harass their victims, sought to secure a fair trial for his predecessor. To accomplish this he was obliged to work against, rather than in co-operation with the audiencia.