WHEREFORE, premises considered, applying Article 266–A and 266–B of the Revised
Penal Code as amended, and the amendatory provisions of R.A. 8353, (The Anti–Rape
Law of 1997), in relation to Section 11 of R.A. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), the Court
found accused, MERVIN GAHI, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt for two counts
of RAPE charged under Criminal Cases No. 4202 and 4203, and sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of DEATH in both cases and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of
Seventy[–]Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos for each case and exemplary damages in
the amount of Twenty[–]Five (P25,000.00) Thousand Pesos for each case, to the victim
[AAA]; and pay the costs.8
ChanRoblesVirt ualawli bra ry
The case was subsequently elevated to the Court of Appeals. After due deliberation, the
Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the appealed decision of the trial court in
the now assailed August 31, 2011 Decision, the dispositive portion of which is
reproduced here:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated April 22, 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court, Eight Judicial Region, Branch 13 of Carigara, Leyte in Criminal
Case Nos. 4202 and 4203, finding appellant Mervin Gahi guilty of two counts of Rape, is
hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that accused–appellant is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. Further, he is ordered to pay AAA the
amount of Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages.9
chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib ra ry
ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary
Having been thwarted twice in his quest for the courts to proclaim his innocence,
appellant comes before this Court for one last attempt at achieving that purpose. In his
Brief, appellant submits a single assignment of error for consideration, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED–APPELLANT OF TWO COUNTS
OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.10
chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary
Appellant maintains that AAA’s incredible and inconsistent testimony does not form
sufficient basis for him to be convicted of two counts of rape. He argues that his
testimony along with that of other defense witnesses should have been accorded
greater weight and credibility. He faults the trial court for ignoring the extended time
period between the alleged rapes and the birth of AAA’s baby; and for disbelieving
Jackie Gucela’s testimony which stated that the latter was AAA’s lover and the father of
AAA’s child, contrary to AAA’s claim that the baby was the fruit of appellant’s unlawful
carnal congress with her. He also insists that his alibi should have convinced the trial
court that he is innocent because he was at another place at the time the rapes were
allegedly committed by him. On the strength of these assertions, appellant believes
that he is deserving of an acquittal that is long overdue because the prosecution failed
miserably to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We are not persuaded.
Article 266–A of the Revised Penal Code defines when and how the felony of rape is
committed, to wit:
Rape is committed –
chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib ra ry
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;