In a rejoinder to their earlier opposition, prosecutors placed emphasis on the late submission of Carrol and Rallestan''s reply to the opposition.
"The reply to opposition of accused-movants Carrol and Rallestan was filed out of time...hence, said accused cannot be allowed to renege upon their counsel''s undertaking and their reply should be as a mere scrap of paper," prosecutors said.
Carrol and Rallestan filed their reply on April 4, 2007, two days late of the April 2, 2007 deadline agreed in court.
Carrol and Rallestan had filed a demurrer of evidence as a way to tell the court that they would no longer file additional evidence because the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to indict them to the charge, thus, the case against them should be immediately dismissed.
They anchored their demurrer on three grounds- that conspiracy was not sufficiently and adequately established; that the prosecution''s evidence, documentary or otherwise, is insufficient to prove the crime charged against them; and that no evidence can be taken against either of them because their alleged involvement was not satisfactorily proven.
In their formal opposition, prosecutors said the demurrer to evidence failed to consider the important aspect of the prosecution''s evidence, thus, "totally fails to show that such evidence is insufficient."
The prosecutors refer to the testimonies of suspect turned state witness Eddie Ardita and the child witness, which reportedly elaborate and confirmed Carrol and Rellastan''s participation in the crime.
While the two accused stated in their demurrer that witnesses Jean Mabaga and Gina Teofilo did not recognize them, prosecutors say both accused may have forgotten that the same witnesses, including Ardita and the child witness, had positively identified them in open court. Prosecutors say what should be considered are the evidences during trial, not the evidences during preliminary investigation. - Joeberth M. Ocao/QSB