POINTS:

 According to John N. Schumacher, S.J. of the Ateneo de Manila University, he

stated that: “I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from
Pio Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since
Valenzuela gave so many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish
authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one another up
to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.” Therefore, Pio
Valuenzuela had several versions of the first Cry of Katipunan.

 In 1986, Valenzuela testified that when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on
whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was vehemently against the revolution.
However, in Teodoro Agoncillo’s book called Revolt of the Masses, it is stated that
Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising if certain
prerequisites were met.

 Teodoro Agoncillo’s evidences were based from one source which was the memoirs of
Pio Valenzuela. But Valenzuela’s statements are not accurate and reliable, therefore
Agoncillo’s evidences are biased.

 In 1911, Valenzuela stated the Katipunan began meeting on August 22 while the
Cry took place on August 23 at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

 It was also confirmed by Masangkay and Samson who were members of the
Katipunan that: Valenzuela was with Bonifacio and other katipuneros in
Balintawak on August 23, 24, and 25.

 Agoncillo considered the Valenzuela memoirs a better source. However, memoirs

could be subjected to authors’ biases and may highlight events favoring the author’s
most desired perspective.

 And according to Guillermo Masangkay’s testimony, he stated that “…the alarm was
raised that the civil guards were coming. The first to flee were Pantas and
Valenzuela. For this reason, they could not have witnessed the ‘Supreme Cry’ that
launched the [fight for] the independence of the Philippines at the moment; neither
did they smell gunpowder of the first shots.” Based from the statement, it was said
that Valuenzela was one of the first who left when the alarms were raised. Meaning,
he was not there to witness the Cry when it happened.

 According to the book of “”The Cry of Balintawak”, it was stated that: “The so-called
‘Cry of Pugad Lawin’ is an invention. This conclusion is based on the total absence of
any contemporary documentation on ‘Pugad Lawin’…There is ample documentation
on the tearing of cedillas and the initial encounter of the revolution. The chronology
 of those events therefore no longer hinges on the testimony of just one of the
eyewitnesses.”

 The reliance of Agoncillo on Valenzuela’s testimony is a shoddy scholarship,

meaning, his statements were badly made or done. Especially that Valenzuela’s
testimony was contradicted by revolutionaries such as members of the Katipunan
namely Guillermo Masangkay.

 The days of August 22-26 were fully compromised of meetings, discussions, and
decisions on how to move forward. But most curiously, Masangkay who was present
at that time remembered that Valenzuela was one of the members who voted
against going to war with spain.