This Supreme Court decision affirms that rape can occur even when a victim initially consents to an encounter if that consent is obtained through fraud or is later overcome by force, threats, or intimidation. The Court underscored that the accused-appellant’s initial deceit in gaining the victim’s trust, coupled with the subsequent use of force and threats, negated any claim of consensual sexual activity. This ruling clarifies that apparent consent is not valid if it is premised on deception or if the victim is later coerced into submission. The decision emphasizes the importance of unequivocal and voluntary consent in sexual encounters and reinforces legal protections for victims of sexual assault.

From Modeling Dreams to Hotel Horror: Did She Consent?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. William Disipulo y Suriben (G.R. No. 252898, August 31, 2022) revolves around accusations of rape by sexual assault and rape by sexual intercourse. The accused, William Disipulo, presented himself as a talent manager and lured the victim, AAA252898, with promises of modeling opportunities. He gained her trust and convinced her to meet him at a hotel under the pretense of a video tape recording (VTR) session. However, once inside the hotel room, Disipulo allegedly used force, threats, and intimidation to commit sexual acts against her will. Disipulo contested the charges, claiming the encounter was consensual, and argued that the victim willingly participated in the sexual activities. The central legal question is whether the initial fraudulent inducement and subsequent actions constituted rape, despite the defense’s claim of consent.

At the heart of this case lies Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, also known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. This law defines rape and specifies the circumstances under which it is committed.

ARTICLE 266-A. Rape. When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

The Supreme Court carefully considered the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the victim. The Court noted the consistency and straightforwardness of her account, which detailed the fraudulent machinations used by Disipulo to gain her trust and the subsequent acts of force and intimidation he employed.

Disipulo argued that force, threat, or intimidation and fraudulent machination are mutually exclusive modes of committing rape, and thus, could not co-exist in his case. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the presence of one of the specified circumstances in Article 266-A is sufficient to justify a conviction if the other elements of the offense are also proven.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the initial deceit used by Disipulo to lure the victim to the hotel did not negate the subsequent use of force and threats. The Court highlighted that, despite the initial voluntary meeting, the victim’s will was ultimately overcome by the accused’s actions. She was not able to resist due to fear and his built. Her inability to resist due to fear was enough to prove that there was force.

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.

The Supreme Court found that Disipulo’s actions of taking videos and threatening to release them served as a form of intimidation, further establishing the lack of consent. The victim’s conduct immediately after the incident, including her emotional distress and eventual disclosure to her mother, supported her claim that the encounter was against her will. These details reinforced the prosecution’s case.

Moreover, the Court addressed the defense’s attempt to portray the victim as an individual of loose morals, asserting that such characterization was irrelevant and inadmissible. According to Section 6 of R.A. No. 8505, also known as the Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998, evidence of the complainant’s past sexual conduct is generally inadmissible unless it is directly relevant to the case. The Court reaffirmed that a victim’s past sexual conduct does not imply consent to subsequent sexual acts.

Considering the penalties, the Supreme Court addressed an error made by the Court of Appeals (CA) in convicting the accused-appellant of only one count of rape by sexual assault when the information included several acts. According to Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.

As such, the Supreme Court imposed two counts of rape by sexual assault, since there was no duplicity of offenses charged, and there were indeed different acts of sexual assault committed.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case has significant implications. It clarifies that consent obtained through fraudulent machination or followed by force, threat, or intimidation is not valid consent in the eyes of the law. It underscores that the crime of rape can occur even when a victim initially agrees to an encounter if their will is subsequently overcome by coercion. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that sexual activity must be unequivocally consensual and voluntary throughout the encounter.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of rape, considering his claim that the sexual encounter with the victim was consensual and whether fraudulent machination and force can co-exist as modes of committing rape.
What is the legal definition of rape according to the Revised Penal Code?	Rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.
Can a person be convicted of rape if the victim initially consented to the encounter?	Yes, a person can be convicted of rape if the initial consent was obtained through fraud or if the victim’s will was later overcome by force, threat, or intimidation.
What role did the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353) play in this case?	The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 amended Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, defining rape and specifying the circumstances under which it is committed, including the use of force, threat, or intimidation and fraudulent machination.
Why did the Court reject the defense’s argument that force and fraudulent machination are mutually exclusive?	The Court rejected the argument because Article 266-A states that the presence of any one of the specified circumstances is sufficient to justify a conviction if the other elements of the offense are proven.
What is the significance of the victim’s behavior immediately after the alleged rape?	The victim’s behavior, including her emotional distress, inability to finish her class, and eventual disclosure to her mother, supported her claim that the encounter was against her will.
How did the Court address the defense’s attempt to portray the victim as a person of loose morals?	The Court asserted that such characterization was irrelevant and inadmissible, citing Section 6 of R.A. No. 8505, which generally prohibits the admission of evidence regarding a rape victim’s past sexual conduct.
What penalties were imposed on the accused in this case?	The accused was found guilty of two counts of rape by sexual assault and one count of rape by sexual intercourse. He was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.

This case underscores the critical importance of genuine and unequivocal consent in sexual encounters. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that consent is not a one-time event but must be continuous and voluntary throughout any sexual activity. This ruling helps protect vulnerable individuals from manipulation and coercion, reinforcing the legal framework designed to prevent sexual assault.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Disipulo, G.R. No. 252898, August 31, 2022