Title
People vs. William Disipuloysuriben
Case
G.R. No. 252898
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2022
A man posing as a talent manager deceived and sexually assaulted an 18-year-old victim, filming the acts and threatening her. Convicted of multiple counts of rape, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages.
rape
sexual assault
criminal law
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252898)

Petitioner / Respondent

Petitioner (appellant to the Supreme Court): William Disipulo y Suriben.
Respondent (appellee at the Supreme Court): People of the Philippines (criminal prosecution).

Key Dates

Alleged events: August 12–15, 2013 (victim encountered accused, subsequent meeting and hotel incidents on August 15, 2013).
Police complaint and arrest procedures: August 16–17, 2013.
RTC Decision convicting accused: June 3, 2017.
CA Decision affirming (with modification): August 23, 2019; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: November 19, 2019.
Supreme Court decision: August 31, 2022.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution (decision date post-1990; applicable constitutional regime).
Statutory provisions and rules applied in the decision: Revised Penal Code (Articles 266-A and 266-B as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997); R.A. No. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009); R.A. No. 7610 (child protection); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children); R.A. No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act, rape shield rule); Rules of Court (Sections on judgment for multiple offenses, motion to quash, and bill of particulars); relevant Supreme Court procedural authorities cited in the decision.

Factual Background (Prosecution’s Version)

The prosecution’s evidence traces initial contact at a family-run store, where accused introduced himself as a talent manager, showed modeling/practice videos, and requested that the victim wear swimwear for photos/VTR. Over several days accused visited, massaged and touched the victim and taught her what to say to an alleged talent manager. On August 15, 2013, the victim met accused at an LRT station and went with him to Halina Hotel under the pretext of a VTR/audition. In the hotel room, the victim alleges accused forcibly kissed her, pushed her onto a bed, inserted his penis into her vagina, ejaculated on her face, digitally penetrated her, and twice forced her to perform oral sex while recording videos. The victim hid in the bathroom, was filmed while washing, and was threatened that the recordings would be released if she reported the incident. She later reported to the police; a medical examination showed “disclosure of sexual abuse” and non-specific gynecologic findings that did not rule out sexual assault.

Defendant’s Version and Defense Contentions

Accused denied non-consensual conduct, asserting the sexual acts were consensual in the context of teaching the victim how to be sexually attractive and to please her boyfriend. He reiterated an assertion that he was gay and thus not inclined toward women, and alleged the complaint stemmed from fears of video dissemination or demands for monetary compensation from third parties. He sought admission of photos/videos to show consent.

Procedural History

The RTC convicted accused on two counts: one count of rape by sexual assault (Article 266-A(2)) and one count of rape by sexual intercourse (Article 266-A(1)), sentencing accordingly and awarding damages. The CA affirmed the conviction but imposed legal interest on the monetary awards and disallowed the video evidence under R.A. No. 9995. The CA denied reconsideration. Accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of: (1) rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A(1), and (2) rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Elements of the Offenses — Legal Framework Applied

The Court restated the statutory elements it must find beyond reasonable doubt: for rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A(1) — (a) commission of carnal knowledge and (b) commission under one of the enumerated circumstances (force/threat/intimidation; deprivation of reason/unconsciousness; fraudulent machination/grave abuse of authority; victim under 12 or demented). For rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) — (a) commission of sexual assault by inserting penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice or inserting an instrument/object into genital/anal orifice; and (b) accomplishment under one of the same enumerated circumstances in paragraph 1.

Credibility Findings and Burden of Proof

The Court upheld the RTC and CA assessments that the prosecution proved the elements beyond reasonable doubt. The victim’s testimony was found straightforward, consistent and corroborated by contemporaneous acts and the medical assessment (which did not rule out sexual assault). The accused conceded carnal knowledge, leaving only the question whether the acts were accompanied by force/threat/intimidation or induced by fraudulent machination. The Court credited the prosecution’s evidence that accused induced the victim to attend under false pretenses (fraudulent machination) and then applied force, threats and intimidation during the hotel incident.

Coexistence of Fraudulent Machination and Force/Threat/Intimidation

The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that fraudulent machination and force/threat/intimidation are mutually exclusive. It explained that the presence of any one of the paragraph 1 circumstances, together with the other elements, suffices for conviction; the existence of one circumstance does not negate the existence or relevance of another. In this case the accused first used deceit to induce attendance and then applied force and threats within the hotel setting, so both modes governed the conduct.

Victim’s Resistance and Physical Injuries — Legal Principles Applied

The Court reaffirmed established law that lack of outward physical resistance or absence of fresh hymenal laceration does not preclude rape. It emphasized that a victim need not resist to the point of injury and that yielding out of fear or genuine apprehension of harm is consistent with non-consent. The victim’s expressions of fear, statements that the accused threatened harm, and subsequent trauma and behavior (inability to eat or sleep, reporting to mother and police) supported the finding of non-consent.

Admissibility of the Video Evidence

Both the CA and the Supreme Court sustained exclusion of the allegedly recorded videos/photos, relying on R.A. No. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act). The Court agreed the defense’s tendered materials were not admissible evidence to prove consent and therefore the RTC rightly disallowed their presentation.

Rape Shield Rule and Irrelevance of Victim’s Alleged Past Conduct

The Court applied R.A. No. 8505 (rape shield) to bar evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct and reiterated that allegations of “loose morals” are irrelevant to whether rape occurred. The victim’s prior sexual history, even if true, does not negate non-consensual acts committed on the charged date.

Multiple Acts, Duplicity, and Convictions for Separate Acts of Sexual Assault

The Supreme Court addressed the information charging multiple acts under a single count of rape by sexual assault. Noting procedural rules on duplicity and the requirement to object by motion to quash before trial (failure to object waives the challenge), the Court found the accused had waived procedural relief and actively defended at trial. Substantively, the Court analyzed whether successive acts constituted separate offenses or a single continuing offense. It concluded the distinct acts (digital vaginal penetration and separate acts of forced fellatio, captured on video) involved different modes of sexual assault and separate criminal intents. As such, two counts of rape by sexual assault were appropriate: one for insertion of fingers into the victim’s vagina, and one covering the forced fellatio (the Court treated the repeated fellatio acts as a continuation of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms