G.R. No. 27859 , December 1, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMANDO DAYO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of July 18, 1925, in Salay, Misamis, Lamberta Valdehuesa was sleeping beside her 13-year-old son, Higino Sabido, while her husband Bruno was away. She was awakened by the sensation of a man having carnal knowledge of her. She pushed the man and screamed, later recognizing him as Amando Dayo. Dayo threatened to kill her with a revolver if she made an outcry, causing Lamberta to faint. Higino, who had also awakened, saw Dayo on top of his mother and tried to wake her, but she was unresponsive. After consummating the act, Dayo threatened to kill Higino if he told his father. Earlier that afternoon, Dayo had gone to the house on the pretext of seeing Bruno and had kissed Lamberta, who rebuked him. After regaining consciousness, Lamberta discovered her chemise raised and her private parts smeared with semen. She reported the incident to her husband the next day, leading to the filing of a rape complaint. The trial court convicted Dayo and sentenced him to 12 years and 1 day of *reclusion temporal*. Dayo appealed, pleading an alibi that he was at a ball in the municipal building until 2 a.m. that night.

ISSUE

Whether the accused, Amando Dayo, is guilty of the crime of rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of Lamberta and her son Higino credible and sufficient to establish the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting that the ball was not far from the victim’s house, making it possible for Dayo to have left temporarily to commit the crime. The Court also held that the victim’s initial state of sleep and the subsequent threat with a revolver negated any possibility of consent. The fact that the victim was asleep at the inception of the act meant the crime was already consummated; any subsequent resignation did not vitiate the rape. The Court considered the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, justifying the imposition of the maximum penalty. The sentence was increased to seventeen years, four months, and one day of *reclusion temporal*. The dissenting opinion of Justice Ostrand expressed doubt about the defendant’s guilt, but the majority affirmed the conviction.