Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Oca V Judge Yu Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Judge Eliza B. Yu was directed to show cause for potential disbarment for violations of legal ethics codes. She argued that requiring her to show cause deprived her of her right against self-incrimination. However, the court held that the right against self-incrimination does not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters like disbarment proceedings. As a judge, Yu should have known the constitutional guarantee only protects individuals from answering directly incriminating questions, not providing objective evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Oca V Judge Yu Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    116 views1 page
    Judge Eliza B. Yu was directed to show cause for potential disbarment for violations of legal ethics codes. She argued that requiring her to show cause deprived her of her right against self-incrimination. However, the court held that the right against self-incrimination does not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters like disbarment proceedings. As a judge, Yu should have known the constitutional guarantee only protects individuals from answering directly incriminating questions, not providing objective evidence.

    Original Title

    Oca v Judge Yu Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Eliza B. Yu was directed to show cause for potential disbarment for violations of legal ethics codes. She argued that requiring her to show cause deprived her of her right against self-incrimination. However, the court held that the right against self-incrimination does not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters like disbarment proceedings. As a judge, Yu should have known the constitutional guarantee only protects individuals from answering directly incriminating questions, not providing objective evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views1 page

    Oca V Judge Yu Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Judge Eliza B. Yu was directed to show cause for potential disbarment for violations of legal ethics codes. She argued that requiring her to show cause deprived her of her right against self-incrimination. However, the court held that the right against self-incrimination does not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters like disbarment proceedings. As a judge, Yu should have known the constitutional guarantee only protects individuals from answering directly incriminating questions, not providing objective evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    OCA V JUDGE YU

    A.M. NO. MT J-12-1813


    MARCH 14, 2017
    MILLER

    FACTS: Respondent Judge Eliza B. Yu is directed to show cause in writing within ten days from notice why she
    should not be disbarred for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
    Professional Ethics as outlined herein.

    ISSUE: Was judge Yu deprived of her right against self-incrimination?

    HELD: NO. The respondent's argument that she was deprived of the guarantee against self-incrimination has no
    basis. As a judge, she was quite aware that the constitutional guarantee only set the privilege of an individual to refuse
    to answer incriminating questions that may directly or indirectly render her criminally liable. The constitutional
    guarantee simply secures to a witness - whether a party or not - the right to refuse to answer any particular
    incriminatory question. The privilege did not prohibit legitimate inquiry in non-criminal matters. At any rate, the rule
    only finds application in case of oral testimony and does not apply to object evidence.

    You might also like