Ernesto was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized substance and failed to prove that Ernesto had knowledge and possession of the drug. The trial court denied the demurrer to evidence, ruling that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Ernesto then proceeded to present his evidence, including his own testimony denying knowledge and ownership of the seized drug and presenting alibi. After trial, the court rendered judgment convicting Ernesto. On appeal, Ernesto argues that the trial court erred in denying his demurrer to evidence and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Can Ernesto still question the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence on appeal despite the denial of his demurrer to evidence? Explain your answer. (Bar 2026 Syllabus)