Amparo v. Mendigorin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pedro A. Amparo, a 1974 Bar candidate, was allowed to take the examinations. On December 1, 1974, during the Criminal Law examination, he was found by headwatcher Lilian Mendigorin reading a piece of paper containing handwritten notes on penalties and formulas, specifically related to reclusion temporal. Amparo initially refused to surrender the paper but eventually did so when threatened with reporting the incident. Procedural History: The headwatcher submitted a special report, followed by a formal report from the Clerk of Court. The Court en banc initially resolved to disqualify Amparo from the remaining examinations without prejudice to his taking them after that year. Amparo requested a chance to explain, leading the Court to reconsider and allow him to continue the examinations, subject to further investigation. An investigation was conducted where Amparo presented his defense and cross-examined witnesses. The Petition: The case originated from a petition filed by Pedro A. Amparo to take the 1974 Bar examinations. The core issue before the Supreme Court, after investigation, was whether Amparo's conduct constituted a violation of the Bar examination rules warranting disqualification, specifically concerning the possession and reading of notes during the examination and the allegation of attempted cheating.
Issue(s)
Whether Pedro A. Amparo committed attempted cheating by possessing and reading notes during the Criminal Law Bar examination. Whether Pedro A. Amparo violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by bringing notes into the examination room.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Pedro A. Amparo guilty of bringing notes into the examination room and of attempted cheating. Consequently, he was disqualified from taking the Bar examinations for the year 1975.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found Amparo guilty of attempted cheating. The presence of handwritten notes on penalties and formulas, pertaining to Criminal Law, during the Criminal Law examination, coupled with his initial refusal to surrender the notes, constituted an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat. His explanation that he merely read the notes by accident after they fell from his pocket while taking out his handkerchief was rebutted by his initial refusal to surrender the paper and the fact that the notes were relevant to the subject matter of the examination. The Court held that his actions overrode his explanation and demonstrated an intent to cheat. On Issue 2: The Court found that Amparo violated Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This provision explicitly states that persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books, or notes into the examination rooms. Amparo admitted to having the piece of paper containing notes in his possession during the examination and acknowledged that it was contrary to the rules to bring such materials into the room. The Court concluded that his possession and reading of these notes constituted a clear violation of this rule, irrespective of whether the notes were directly used to answer any question.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that bringing notes into the examination room and the act of reading them, even if not directly used to answer a question, constitutes attempted cheating. Such conduct violates Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits bringing papers, books, or notes into examination rooms. The Court emphasized that the overt act of reading the notes, coupled with the examinee's initial refusal to surrender them, overrides any claim of accidental possession or lack of intent to cheat, leading to disqualification from the Bar examinations.