People vs. Disipulo

When an Information charges multiple acts of sexual assault under Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict for as many distinct offenses as are charged and proved, provided each act arises from a separate criminal intent. The continuing crime principle applicable to multiple penile penetrations in rape by sexual intercourse does not automatically extend to rape by sexual assault where the modes of commission and the motivations are distinct.

In August 2013, William Disipulo went to a restaurant owned by BBB252898, the mother of AAA252898. He introduced himself as “Struck,” a gay talent manager, and expressed interest in recruiting AAA252898 as a model. Over several days, he gained her family’s confidence by claiming his homosexuality negated any malice, massaging AAA252898’s breasts and buttocks under the guise of contouring her figure, and promising to arrange a video tape recording (VTR) and auditions. On August 15, 2013, he took AAA252898 to Halina Hotel, where, instead of a VTR session, he sexually assaulted her. The ensuing prosecution led to two Informations for rape — one for sexual assault and one for sexual intercourse.

• The Deceit and Grooming: On the evening of August 12, 2013, Disipulo visited the restaurant of BBB252898, mother of AAA252898, to purchase cellphone load. He introduced himself as “Struck,” gave directions to the Department of Foreign Affairs to BBB252898 and her family, and remarked that AAA252898 could become a model or television commercial talent. He stated he was looking for talents under 17 and remarked that AAA252898’s age of 18 could still be “faked.” He showed videos of his supposed talents, mentioned a “Tita Vecky” as a known talent manager, and asked AAA252898 to wear a swimsuit for photographs. He repeatedly assured the family he had no bad intentions because he was gay. He commented on AAA252898’s underarms and bust, recommended massages for contouring, and demonstrated exercises by touching and lifting her breasts. With BBB252898’s consent, he massaged AAA252898’s breasts upward and her buttocks in a room on the second floor, accompanied by AAA252898’s sister CCC252898.

• Escalation and the Hotel Meeting: Disipulo returned the next evening to massage AAA252898 again, and later communicated with her and CCC252898 via Skype about celebrities. He instructed AAA252898 to meet him at an LRT station on August 15, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. for an audition and VTR. AAA252898 agreed, believing him to be gay and that no malice was involved.

• The Hotel Incident: Upon meeting, Disipulo told AAA252898 they would go to Halina Hotel with other artists. After eating, they proceeded there. Once inside the hotel room, Disipulo undressed and showered. He suddenly grabbed AAA252898, pushed her, and kissed her on the lips. She resisted and asked, “akala ko ba magpapractice lang at hihilutin mo lang ako.” He threatened to hurt her. He pushed her onto the bed, ignored her statement that she was menstruating, pulled off her pants and underwear, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He touched and kissed her breasts, told her to “enjoy,” and eventually ejaculated on her face, claiming the sperm would make her skin smoother. After she washed herself in the restroom, Disipulo unlocked the door, pulled off her underwear, pushed her back to the bed, and inserted his finger into her vagina. He then forced her to insert his penis into her mouth and recorded the act with his cellphone for about 30 minutes. He forced her to repeat fellatio because the video purportedly was unclear, telling her to do it “ten times.” He also filmed her washing in the bathroom and threatened to release the videos if she reported the incident.

• The Aftermath and Arrest: AAA252898 left the hotel and went to school but was unable to finish her class, feeling disoriented and traumatized. She returned home but could not eat or sleep, eventually confiding in her mother. On August 16, 2013, she, her sister, and the sister’s boyfriend went to the police. The police instructed them to wait for Disipulo’s text. From Robinsons Place Ermita, CCC252898 used AAA252898’s phone to invite Disipulo to their house. Upon his arrival, BBB252898 and a helper flagged down a passing police mobile and assisted in his arrest. AAA252898 later received threatening and lewd text messages from an unknown number referring to her video. Dr. Florida Taladtad of the Philippine General Hospital examined AAA252898 on August 17, 2013, finding “disclosure of sexual abuse; non-specific gynecologic findings but does not rule out sexual assault.”

• Defense Version: Disipulo denied the charges. He claimed the sexual encounter was consensual, that AAA252898 had asked him to teach her how to be more sexually attractive and how to please her boyfriend, and that he was gay and not attracted to women. He alleged the case was filed because AAA252898 feared the release of the video and because he refused the P250,000.00 demand of the boyfriends of AAA252898 and CCC252898.

• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found AAA252898’s testimony clear, categorical, and straightforward, and concluded that Disipulo employed deceit to gain the family’s trust, then used force and intimidation to commit the sexual acts. The CA affirmed, holding the inconsistencies between AAA252898’s sworn statement and her court testimony were immaterial, that her alleged loose morals were irrelevant, that the absence of hymenal injury did not negate rape, and that the video evidence was inadmissible under the Anti‑Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Disipulo argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, maintaining that the sexual encounter was consensual, initiated by AAA252898 herself, and that she voluntarily went to the hotel.

• Mutual Exclusivity of Modes: Disipulo contended that rape could not be committed simultaneously by fraudulent machination and by force, threat, or intimidation based on the same act, as these modes are mutually exclusive.

• Admissibility of Exculpatory Evidence: Disipulo insisted that the RTC should have allowed the presentation of photos and videos of the incident, which he claimed would prove the encounter was consensual.

• Victim’s Motive and Character: Disipulo maintained that AAA252898 filed the case out of fear that he would release the video, and because he did not accede to a demand for P250,000.00. He further asserted that AAA252898 was an individual of loose morals, implying her testimony was unworthy of belief.

• Credibility of the Victim: The People argued that AAA252898’s testimony was spontaneous, straightforward, consistent on material points, and sufficient to establish all elements of the offenses.

• Proof of Elements: The People maintained that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Disipulo employed deceit to lure AAA252898 and thereafter used force, threat, and intimidation to consummate the sexual acts.

• Inadmissibility of the Video: The People countered that the video recording was properly excluded under Republic Act No. 9995, the Anti‑Photo and Video Voyeurism Act, and that its exclusion did not impair the prosecution’s case.

• Irrelevance of Victim’s Past Conduct: Invoking the Rape Shield provision of Republic Act No. 8505, the People argued that AAA252898’s past sexual conduct, even if true, was immaterial and inadmissible.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Disipulo committed rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault through force, threat, intimidation, or fraudulent machination.

• Coexistence of Modes of Rape: Whether fraudulent machination and force, threat, or intimidation may be simultaneously appreciated as modes of commission in a single prosecution for rape.

• Admissibility of Video Evidence: Whether the trial court correctly excluded the video recording of the incident proffered by the defense.

• Duplicity of Offenses and Correct Number of Convictions: Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. 13‑299318, which alleged multiple distinct acts of sexual assault, could support only one count or separate counts of rape by sexual assault, and what the proper penalty should be.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The testimony of AAA252898 was found to be clear, categorical, and credible. Through deceit, Disipulo gained the trust of AAA252898 and her family by representing himself as a gay talent manager. After inducing her to go to Halina Hotel under the pretense of a VTR, he employed force, threats, and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of her and to commit acts of sexual assault. The absence of external injuries or hymenal laceration was held immaterial, as hymenal injury is not an element of rape. AAA252898’s passive resistance, explained by fear and Disipulo’s physical build, did not constitute consent. The victim’s immediate post‑incident trauma, her disclosure to her mother, and the subsequent threatening text messages corroborated the absence of consent. The defense’s claim of a consensual encounter and extortion motive was rejected, and Disipulo’s stated homosexuality was deemed not to preclude commission of the acts, especially after he admitted still being attracted to women. The victim’s alleged promiscuity was barred from consideration under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8505 (the “Rape Shield” provision) and, even if true, did not diminish the credibility of her account.

• Coexistence of Modes of Rape: The modes of committing rape under Article 266‑A(1) are not mutually exclusive. The existence of one circumstance is sufficient, but there is no bar to the concurrent or sequential presence of multiple circumstances. In this case, fraud was initially employed to lure the victim, and force, threat, and intimidation immediately followed to overcome her resistance — a sequence that does not negate the crime or render the conviction infirm.

• Admissibility of Video Evidence: The video recording of the sexual acts was properly excluded. It was inadmissible in evidence under Republic Act No. 9995, the Anti‑Photo and Video Voyeurism Act, which prohibits the taking and use of such material without the victim’s consent. Its exclusion did not deprive the defense of any valid exculpatory evidence because its very existence confirmed the act of recording without consent, one of the offenses already encompassed by the prosecution’s evidence.

• Duplicity of Offenses and Correct Number of Convictions: The Information in Criminal Case No. 13‑299318 charged three distinct acts constitutive of sexual assault: (1) insertion of the finger into the vagina (digital penetration); (2) forcing the victim to insert the penis into her mouth (fellatio) on the first occasion; and (3) a second act of fellatio while video recording. The accused failed to move to quash the Information on the ground of duplicity before trial; under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the court may convict for as many offenses as are charged and proved. The continuing crime principle applied in cases of multiple penile penetrations (e.g., People v. Aaron) does not govern where the acts involve distinct modes of sexual assault. Digital penetration and fellatio constitute distinct offenses under Article 266‑A(2), each with a separate criminal intent and consummation. The two acts of fellatio, however, were deemed to arise from a single criminal impulse — the first recording being unsatisfactory, the act was repeated for a clearer video — and thus constitute one continuing crime. Consequently, Disipulo was held liable for two separate counts of rape by sexual assault: one for digital penetration and one for the continuing offense of fellatio. The CA’s conviction for a single count of sexual assault was accordingly modified. The conviction for one count of rape by sexual intercourse was sustained, as only one penile penetration was sufficiently proven.

• Duplicity of Offenses and Waiver — Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, when two or more offenses are charged in a single information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved. The remedy for duplicity is a motion to quash under Section 3(t), Rule 117, or a motion for bill of particulars; failure to do so constitutes waiver.

• Continuing Crime Doctrine in Rape Cases — In rape by sexual intercourse, multiple penile penetrations committed during a single continuing act, without interruption and motivated by a single criminal intent, constitute only one count of rape (People v. Aaron). This principle does not automatically extend to rape by sexual assault where the acts involve different modes (digital penetration versus fellatio) and distinct criminal intents, thus warranting separate convictions.

• Modes of Rape Not Mutually Exclusive — The circumstances listed in paragraph 1 of Article 266‑A (force/threat/intimidation; deprivation of reason; fraudulent machination; age/dementia) are not mutually exclusive. The presence of one suffices for conviction, and multiple circumstances may coexist or occur sequentially without vitiating the prosecution’s case.

• Rape Shield Rule — Pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998), evidence of a complainant’s past sexual conduct or reputation is inadmissible unless the court finds it material and relevant to the case.

• Inferiority of Affidavits to In‑Court Testimony — Affidavits are generally abbreviated, incomplete, and inferior to testimony given in open court. Discrepancies between a sworn statement and trial testimony on non‑material points do not impair credibility (Kummer v. People).

• Hymenal Injury Not an Element of Rape — A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape; the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate the occurrence of sexual abuse (People v. Orilla). A medical certificate is merely corroborative and not indispensable.

• “It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.” — Applied in ruling that AAA252898’s passive resistance, borne of fear, did not amount to consent.

• “The substantial differences in the modes of committing the acts constituting sexual assault, coupled with the distinct criminal motivations of accused-appellant in the performance of each act, leads this Court to conclude that the insertion of accused-appellant’s fingers into AAA252898’s vagina did not arise from the same criminal impulse as the two incidents of fellatio. As such, two counts of rape by sexual assault should be imposed on accused-appellant.” — Ratio decidendi for modifying the conviction from a single to two counts of sexual assault.

• “Between the Salaysay of AAA252898 and her testimony, this Court accords greater weight to the latter. … [A]ffidavits are usually abbreviated and inaccurate. … [T]he discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte affidavits are generally incomplete.” — Applied in rejecting the defense’s claim of material inconsistency.

• People v. Aaron, 438 Phil. 296 (2002) — Distinguished. The principle that multiple penile penetrations during one continuing act of rape constitute a single count does not control where the charged acts are distinct forms of sexual assault (digital penetration and fellatio) committed with separate criminal intents.

• People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Cited to differentiate rape by sexual intercourse from rape by sexual assault, and to establish the correct amounts of monetary awards for sexual assault (P30,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages).

• People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240750, June 21, 2021 — Applied as authority that an accused may be convicted of both statutory rape and rape by sexual assault committed on the same occasion based on a single information when the accused failed to object to duplicity before trial.

• People v. Agoncillo, 820 Phil. 1194 (2017) — Cited for the proposition that an offender may be convicted of both rape by sexual assault and statutory rape arising from the same incident, provided the offenses are properly alleged in the information.

• People v. Lucena, 728 Phil. 147 (2014) — Rationale adopted to support the finding that distinct acts of sexual assault committed with separate criminal intents, even if successive, may give rise to multiple convictions.

• Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670 (2013) — Applied on the rule that in‑court testimony prevails over ex‑parte affidavits when inconsistencies arise.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied to increase the monetary awards for rape by sexual intercourse to P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied to impose six percent interest per annum on all monetary awards from finality of judgment until full payment.

• Article 266‑A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Defines and enumerates the modes of committing rape by sexual intercourse (paragraph 1) and rape by sexual assault (paragraph 2). The Court analyzed the elements of each mode and confirmed that the circumstances listed are not mutually exclusive; the presence of any one circumstance, taken together with the other elements, suffices for conviction. The Court further applied the provision in holding that digital penetration and fellatio are both punishable under paragraph 2 as distinct forms of sexual assault.

• Article 266‑B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Prescribes the penalties of reclusion perpetua for rape by sexual intercourse and prision mayor for rape by sexual assault, absent qualifying circumstances. Applied in imposing the correct penalties and in determining the range of the indeterminate sentence.

• Section 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Permits a court to convict an accused of as many offenses as are charged in a single information when the accused fails to object before trial. The Court relied on this rule to justify the imposition of two convictions for sexual assault despite the duplicitous Information.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998) — Bars the admission of evidence of a rape complainant’s past sexual conduct or reputation unless the court finds it material and relevant. Applied to reject the defense’s attempt to impeach AAA252898’s character and credibility.

• Republic Act No. 9995 (Anti‑Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009) — Rendered the video recording of the sexual acts inadmissible in evidence, as its creation and use were prohibited by law.

Leonen, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ. concurred.