In Re: Pedro A. Amparo

A bar candidate who knowingly brings notes into the examination room and reads them during the examination commits attempted cheating and violates Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, warranting disqualification from taking future bar examinations, notwithstanding that the notes had no material reference to any question asked in the examination.

Pedro A. Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol, was a candidate for the 1974 Bar examinations. He filed a petition to take the examinations, which was granted. The Bar examinations are governed by Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes the qualifications and conduct of bar candidates, including Section 10, which prohibits examinees from bringing papers, books, or notes into the examination rooms.

Pedro A. Amparo of Guindulman, Bohol, filed a petition to take the 1974 Bar examinations, which was granted. On the afternoon of December 1, 1974, he was at his assigned seat no. 17, room 401, fourth floor, Manuel L. Quezon University Building on R. Hidalgo, Manila, taking the examination in Criminal Law.

While the examination was in progress, headwatcher Lilian Mendigorin reported that Amparo was found reading, at approximately 3:15 o'clock, a piece of paper containing notes in Criminal Law. He at first refused to surrender the paper but later gave it to Mendigorin when she threatened to report the matter to the authorities. A verbal report was relayed to the Bar Chairman, who instructed that no investigation be made then to forestall commotion that might disturb other candidates. Amparo was permitted to continue answering the questions. Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted a special report on the incident, and on the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo Mendoza filed a formal report.

Acting on the report, the Court en banc on December 3, 1974, unanimously resolved to disqualify Amparo from taking the remaining Bar examinations in Remedial Law and Labor and Social Legislation on December 8, 1974, without prejudice to allowing him to take the Bar examinations after that year. In a letter dated December 5, 1974, Amparo requested that before final action became effective, he be given a chance to explain his side. The Court reconsidered its prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take the December 8 examinations without prejudice to further action after a formal and more detailed investigation.

As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on December 9, 1974, at which Amparo appeared in his own behalf, cross-examined the witnesses against him, presented himself as his own witness, and presented three bar candidates who were seated near him in the examination room. At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin identified Amparo as the examinee whom she saw reading a piece of paper inside the examination room. The piece of paper, marked as exhibit C, contained handwritten notes on both sides on the durations of penalties and a formula for computing them, particularly reclusion temporal. Mendigorin testified that she approached Amparo and asked for the paper; that he refused and put it in his pocket; that when she approached him a second time, he fished the paper from his pocket and gave it to her; and that when, at the end of the examination period, Amparo submitted his examination notebook, he told her that he really had intended to cheat. On cross-examination, she elaborated that Amparo gave the paper only when she told him she would bring the matter up to higher authority.

Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under headwatcher Mendigorin, corroborated her testimony. He declared that from a distance of five meters, he saw Amparo reading a piece of paper on his lap; that he wanted to approach him but his headwatcher was already ahead of him; and that Amparo placed the paper in his pocket, but when Mendigorin threatened to report the matter, Amparo yielded exhibit C with a smile.

In his testimony, Amparo admitted having in his possession, in the course of the examination, the piece of paper, exhibit C. He explained that because he was perspiring, he took his handkerchief from his pocket, and out also came the piece of paper which fell to the floor; that the notes were not in his handwriting as they were given by a friend; and that it was by accident that he picked up the paper to find out what it was, as he had forgotten about it, but had no intention to use it. He claimed that while he was reading it, the headwatcher saw him and demanded it from him, but he refused because he thought he might need it for "future reference," but when the headwatcher insisted as otherwise she would report the matter to her supervisor, Amparo surrendered the paper. On cross-examination, he declared that exhibit C had been in his pocket a long time before December 1; that he had not changed his pants for three weeks; that when the first bell rang for the examination in Criminal Law, he was required to put "all his things" out of the room; that he forgot about the paper inside his pocket; that when he took out his handkerchief to wipe his perspiration, the paper fell to the floor, and he wondered what it was and then recalled upon reading it that it had been given by a friend; and that as he was reading it, "that diligent headwatcher came and asked for that paper." He further admitted that he knew it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room.

Bar candidates Jovencio Fajilan, Norman M. Balagtas, and Apolinario O. Calix, Sr., who were seated near Amparo in room 401, were presented by the respondent as his witnesses, but all of them professed lack of knowledge about the incident as they were engrossed in answering the examination questions.

• Explanation of Possession: Amparo argued that the notes were not in his handwriting, having been given by a friend, and that he had forgotten about them; he claimed the paper accidentally fell from his pocket when he took out his handkerchief to wipe his perspiration, and he merely picked it up to find out what it was without any intention to use it.
• Refusal to Surrender: Amparo explained that he initially refused to surrender the paper because he thought he might need it for "future reference," not because he intended to use it for cheating.
• No Material Use: Amparo argued that the notes had no "material use" to him in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law.

N/A — The case text does not recount arguments presented by a respondent; the proceeding was an investigation conducted by the Clerk of Court upon order of the Court, with witnesses testifying against Amparo.

• Violation of Rules: Whether Amparo knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by bringing notes into the examination room.
• Attempted Cheating: Whether Amparo committed an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes during the examination.

• Violation of Rules: Yes. Amparo knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that "Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms."
• Attempted Cheating: Yes. Amparo committed an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes, notwithstanding that the notes bore no reference to any question asked in the examination.

• Violation of Rules: The Court found it clear that Amparo, in the course of the examination in Criminal Law, had possession of the piece of paper containing notes on the durations of penalties and that he knew that it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. His own admission of knowledge of the rule, coupled with his possession of the notes during the examination, established the violation.

• Attempted Cheating: The Court acknowledged that Amparo's impression that the notes had no "material use" to him was correct, in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law. However, even so, he committed an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes. His refusal to surrender the paper containing the notes when first demanded; his eventual surrender of it only after he was informed that he would be reported; and the facts that the notes pertained to Criminal Law and the examination then in Criminal Law — all these override and rebut his explanation that he merely read the notes to find out what they were as he had forgotten about them.

• Attempted Cheating in Bar Examinations — An overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat, such as reading notes during an examination, constitutes attempted cheating even if the notes bear no reference to any question asked in the examination. The Court applied this principle by finding that Amparo's act of reading the notes, his refusal to surrender them, and the relevance of the notes to the subject being examined all established attempted cheating.

• Possession of Prohibited Materials — Knowingly bringing notes into the examination room violates Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits examinees from bringing papers, books, or notes into examination rooms. The Court applied this rule by finding that Amparo's admission that he knew the rule, combined with his possession of the notes during the examination, established the violation.

• "It is clear that Amparo, in the course of the examination in Criminal Law, had possession of the piece of paper containing notes on the durations of penalties and that he knew that it is contrary to the rules to bring notes and books inside the examination room. It thus results that he knowingly violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides that 'Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms.'" — This passage establishes the Court's finding of a violation of the Rules of Court based on Amparo's knowing possession of notes during the examination.

• "Amparo's impression that the notes had no 'material use' to him is correct, in the sense that they bore no reference to any question asked in the examination in Criminal Law; even so he committed an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading the notes." — This passage articulates the Court's holding that attempted cheating does not require that the notes actually be useful for answering the examination questions.

• "His refusal to surrender the paper containing the notes when first demanded; his eventual surrender of it only after he was informed that he would be reported; and the facts that the notes pertained to Criminal Law and the examination then in Criminal Law — all these override and rebut his explanation that he merely read the notes to find out what they were as he had forgotten about them." — This passage identifies the circumstantial evidence that rebutted Amparo's innocent explanation and supported the finding of attempted cheating.

N/A — The case text does not cite any prior jurisprudence.

• Section 10, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides that "Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms." The Court applied this provision to find that Amparo knowingly violated it by having possession of notes on Criminal Law during the Criminal Law examination.

Makalintal, C.J., Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and Martin, JJ., concurred.

N/A — The case text does not indicate any dissenting opinion. Teehankee, J., was on leave.