This case has been cited 2 times or more.
2011-10-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution[27] and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.[28] The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[29] A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument.[30] Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.[31] | |||||
2010-02-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.[18] |