G.R. No. L-38849 July 18, 1975
IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO (1974 Bar Candidate), petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro A. Amparo was a candidate in the 1974 Bar Examinations. During the afternoon examination in Criminal Law on December 1, 1974, headwatcher Lilian Mendigorin reported that she saw Amparo reading a piece of paper containing handwritten notes on the durations of penalties. When she demanded the paper, Amparo initially refused and placed it in his pocket, surrendering it only after she threatened to report the incident. The Court initially disqualified him from the remaining exams but later allowed him to take them pending a formal investigation.
At the investigation, Mendigorin and another watcher, Vernon Vasquez, testified to seeing Amparo read the notes. The notes, marked as Exhibit C, contained information pertinent to Criminal Law. Amparo admitted possession of the paper but claimed it accidentally fell from his pocket when he retrieved his handkerchief. He stated he read it merely to recall what it was, having forgotten about it, and had no intention to use it for cheating. Three fellow candidates presented by Amparo testified they saw nothing, being engrossed in their own exams.

ISSUE

Whether Pedro A. Amparo is guilty of violating the rules governing the Bar Examinations, specifically for bringing notes into the examination room and attempted cheating.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Amparo guilty. The legal logic centers on the violation of a specific rule and the inference of dishonest intent from his actions. Section 10, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly prohibits bringing papers, books, or notes into examination rooms. Amparo admitted knowing this rule yet was in possession of the notes during the exam. His claim of accidental possession and innocent reading is rebutted by the circumstances.
The Court reasoned that his initial refusal to surrender the notes, his compliance only under threat of being reported, and the fact that the notes pertained to the subject being examined (Criminal Law) collectively demonstrate an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat. His explanation was deemed implausible and overridden by these objective facts. The notes’ lack of direct relevance to any specific exam question does not exonerate him; the violation lies in the prohibited act of bringing and consulting them. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of disqualification from taking the 1975 Bar Examinations.