With the failure of petitioner to formally offer his documentary evidence, his p

roof of his fathers incompetence consisted purely of testimonies given by himsel

f and his sister (who were claiming interest in their fathers real and personal
properties) and their fathers former caregiver (who admitted to be acting under
their direction). These testimonies, which did not include any expert medical te
stimony, were insufficient to convince the trial court of petitioners cause of a
ction and instead lead it to grant the demurrer to evidence that was filed by re
spondent.
t is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and
persuasion, to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion.25 While it is true that the accused may be convicted on the basis of
the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, it must be clear, positiv
e, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
Mere accusation is not enough.26 The simplistic assertion of private complainant
that appellant had sexual intercourse with her on May 7 and May 26, 1999, canno
t suffice to establish moral certainty as to his guilt. Her statements miserably
fell short of the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required in
the prosecution of criminal cases.27 As appellant correctly argued, her testimo
ny was sorely lacking in details. Equally important, there was absolutely no pro
of of force or intimidation.
The prosecution must demonstrate the culpability of the accused beyond reasonabl
e doubt, for an accusation is not synonymous with guilt.29
Our legal culture demands that before any person may be convicted of any crime a
nd deprived of life, liberty or property, the requisite quantum of proof must be
presented. A strong suspicion or possibility of guilt is not sufficient.30 Corr
elatively, to determine the sufficiency of the evidence for the State, it is imp
ortant to examine it cautiously. If it falls short of establishing moral certain
ty of guilt, the verdict must be one of acquittal.31
(29 People v. Ortega, supra (citing People v. Reyes, 60 SCRA 126, September 30,
1974; People v. Melencion, supra; and People v. Laguerta, supra).
30 People v. Robles, supra.
31 People v. Abino, 423 Phil. 263, December 11, 2001; People v. De la Cruz, supr
a; People v. Laguerta, supra.)
(Sic) Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the court shall cons
ider no evidence which has not been formally offered. A formal offer is necessar
y, since judges are required to base their findings of fact and their judgment s
olely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial (Ong vs
. CA, GR No. 117103). Hence, without any formal offer of evidence, this Honorabl
e Court has no evidence to consider.
12. The charge against the accused has no leg to stand on. The witnesses that ha
d been presented by the prosecution testified mainly on the occurrences on the n
ight of the incident and had no knowledge of any connection with or any particip
ation by the accused in the incident.
13. The hearings of the case have been delayed since 2001 through no fault of th
e defense to the prejudice of the rights of the accused to a speedy trial, manda
ted by no less than Art. III, Sec. 16 of the Constitution.
14. Since UP-OLA had entered its appearance in 2005, the case had been reset for
twelve (12) times, most of which are due to the fault or absence of the prosecu
tion. For the five year duration of the case, the prosecution still has not pres

ented any evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Me
anwhile, the accused has been unduly stripped of this liberty for more than five
(5) years upon an unsubstantiated charge.