Criminal Law

People of the Philippines vs William Disipulo

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. 252898 – Criminal Law – Book II – Crimes Against Persons – Rape; Invalid Defenses; Promiscuous History of Victim – Rape Shield Doctrine

AAA filed two rape cases against William Disipulo. She alleged that William introduced himself as a talent scout who was looking for models. William invited her to a hotel for a video shoot. In the hotel room, AAA alleged that instead of doing the video shoot, William forcefully inserted his penis into the vagina and mouth of AAA.

In his defense, William explained that AAA willingly went with him to the hotel; that AAA had a promiscuous past (liberated and open-minded), that he is gay; and that the medico-legal report did not show any fresh laceration (here AAA was medically examined two days after the alleged rape).

ISSUE: Whether or not the defenses of Disipulo are valid.


1. Though AAA may have initially voluntarily went with Disipulo to the hotel room, it does not mean that she consented to have sex with him. AAA went with him to the hotel under the premise that they will be doing a video shoot for purposes of the modeling opportunity that Disipulo was offering to AAA.

2. The alleged promiscuity and loose morals of AAA, even if true, does not mean that she cannot be a victim of rape. In fact, the Rape Shield clause in R.A. 8505 provides “In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.”

3. Disipulo’s claim that he is gay does not deserve credence. Firstly, he admitted that he is still sexually attracted to women. Second, even if he identifies himself as gay, his sexual orientation does not make it physically impossible to commit the acts complained against him.

4. It is settled that hymenal injury has never been an element of rape, for an individual might still be raped without such resulting injury. The absence of fresh lacerations in a victim’s hymen does not prove that she was not raped. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. The credible disclosure of a victim that the accused raped her is the most important proof of the sexual abuse.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply