Q. What is the name of that child? A. Betty Udang. Q. Do you mean to say that you also use "rugby"? A. No, I am not using "rugby", but I used it for the first time when his child let me used then (sic). Q. Were you, in fact, being arrested (sic) at that time when Bienvenido Udang, Sr. have you arrested? A. Yes. Q. Who arrested you? A. I was arrested by the police and I told the police about the incident because I wanted to go out but the police needed a signature in order for me to go out. Q. Whose signature is needed? A. Bienvenido Udang, Sr. Q. How come those two incidents of sexual abuse by Bienvenido Udang, Sr. A. I reported the incidents to the police because they interviewed me. [110] With AAA's categorical testimony, the prosecution discharged its burden of proving Udang's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and has made a prima facie case for two (2) counts of sexual abuse against him. In other words, the prosecution presented the "amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counterbalance the general presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction."[111] The burden of evidence then shifted to the defense to counter the prosecution's prima facie case. Explaining the difference between "burden of proof” and "burden of evidence," this Court in Bautista v. Sarmiento[112] said: When a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a criminal case . . . the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed—the prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial. This burden of going forward with the evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the prosecution. Then the burden shifts back.[113] (Citation omitted) Unfortunately Udang failed to present evidence sufficient to counter the prosecution's prima facie case against him. To destroy AAA's credibility, Udang capitalizes on the fact that he was charged only after he had AAA arrested for sniffing rugby. However, given AAA's affirmative and credible testimony, Udang's allegation of ill motive is deemed inconsequential. While prosecution witness Dr. Revelo testified that the lacerations found in AAA's genitalia could have been "introduced by other operation"[114] aside from sexual intercourse, Udang had nothing but denials and alibis as defenses. If, as Udang testified, he was with his mother, siblings, and some barangay tanods during the alleged incidents, he could have presented them as witnesses to corroborate his testimony, but he did not. Neither is Betty's testimony that Udang never had drinks with AAA sufficient to acquit her father. Udang's and Betty's testimonies are "self-serving"[115] and were correctly disregarded by the trial court. As correctly held by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals, the testimonies of Gandawali and Orcales, AAA's fellow inmates at the Cagayan de Oro City Jail, were hearsay, hence, inadmissible in evidence.[116] This is because Gandawali and Orcales had no personal knowledge of the incidents as they were not there when the incidents happened. In sum, this Court is morally convinced that Udang committed two (2) counts of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, with each count punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law[117] and absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the present case, the maximum imposable penalty for each count should be the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period[118] which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period ranging from 17 years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to 20 years.[119] On the other hand, the minimum term of the imposable penalty shall be the next penalty lower in degree than that prescribed by law which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum