IN RE PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 BAR CANDIDATE)

Pedro A. Amparo of Guindulman,
Bohol filed a petition to take
the 1974 Bar examinations.  This petition was granted.

In 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.  The Bar examination that afternoon was in
Criminal Law.

While the examination was in progress, the headwatcher
in room 401, Lilian Mendigorin,
reported that examinee 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 forthwith gave instructions that no investigation be
then made in order to forestall any commotion that might disturb the other
candidates.  Amparo
was permitted to continue answering the questions.  Headwatcher Mendigorin thereafter submitted a special report on the
incident.

On the following day, Clerk of Court Romeo Mendoza filed a formal
report.  Acting thereon, the Court en
banc,
on December 3, 1974, unanimously resolved “to disqualify Pedro Amparo from taking the Bar examinations still to be given,
namely, in the subjects of Remedial Law and Labor and Social Legislation, on
Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice to allowing him to take the Bar
examinations after this year.”

In a letter dated December
5, 1974, Amparo requested
that “before final action is or
becomes effective” he “be given a chance to explain” his side.  On December 5, 1974 the Court reconsidered its
prior resolution and allowed Amparo to take
the Bar examinations on the coming Sunday, December 8, 1974, without prejudice
to further action by the Court after a formal and more detailed investigation
of the incident.

As ordered, the Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on
December 9, 1974 at which the respondent Amparo (a)
appeared in his own behalf, (b) cross-examined the witnesses against him, (c)
presented himself as his own witness, and (d) presented as his witnesses three
Bar candidates who in the afternoon of December 1 were seated near him in the
examination room.

At the investigation, headwatcher Mendigorin identified Amparo as
the Bar examinee whom she saw reading a piece of paper inside the examination
room in the course of the examination in Criminal Law.  The piece of paper, later marked as exhibit
C, contains handwritten notes, on both sides, on the durations of penalties and
formula of computing them, particularly reclusion temporal.  Mendigorin
testified that she approached Amparo and asked for
the piece of paper; that he refused and put the paper in his pocket; that when
she approached him a second time, he fished the paper from his pocket and gave
it to her; 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 piece of paper only
when she told him that she would bring the matter up to higher authority.

Vernon B. Vasquez, a watcher under headwatcher
Mendigorin corroborated the latter’s 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 thereupon
placed the paper in his pocket, but when Mendigorin threatended 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, explaining 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 is was, as
he had forgotten about it, but had no intention to use it; that while he was
reading it, the headwatcher saw him and demanded it
from him, but he refused because he thought that 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.

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.”

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 indicate 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 was 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.

We find the respondent Amparo guilty of
(1) bringing notes into the examination room and (2) attempted cheating.

According to the official report of the Bar Confidant, approved
by the Court Amparo did not pass the 1974 Bar
examinations.

Accordingly,
it is the sense of the Court that Pedro A. Amparo
should be as he is hereby disqualified from taking the Bar examinations for the
year 1975.

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

Teehankee, J., is on leave.