Men can also be victims of sexual violence: Supreme Court
Trigger warning: This article contains mentions of sexual violence and rape.
The Supreme Court has ruled that men can also be victims of sexual violence.
"Sexual violence devastates equally, regardless of gender," wrote Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen in a decision promulgated on Feb. 4 and made public on Oct. 30.
The ruling came with the SC's en banc guilty verdict against a woman who was found to have committed statutory acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew.
In 2018, the woman took advantage of the child while he was visiting his father's relatives, per SC. While the child was asleep, the woman woke him, told him to remove his clothes, brought him to her bed, then had sexual intercourse with him. Afterwards, she told him to not tell anyone about it or else she would say he was the one who forced her to do the act.
The child was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the sexual abuse, and also had suicidal thoughts.
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals determined the woman was guilty of acts of lasciviousness as defined by Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.
The woman brought her case to the SC, saying the child had consented to the sexual act. The SC, however, disagreed.
According to the Court, the age of sexual consent in 2018, when the incident took place, was 12 years old. Since the child was 11 then, the SC determined he was not legally capable of giving consent.
The law's expanded definition of rape
The Court also clarified that the correct offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not RA 7610, which applies only when a child seems to consent to sexual activity under the influence of an adult. If a child is fully unaware, unconscious, or in the case of the woman's crime, not able to give legal consent, RA 7610 does not apply.
Further, the SC explained that at the time of the incident, Article 266-A of the RPC defined rape as "a man inserting his penis into a woman's vagina, as well as the insertion of a penis or any object into another person's genital." With the limited definition, the woman was charged with statutory acts of lasciviousness.
In 2022, however, RA 11648 was enacted with the expanded definition of rape, saying "Rape may be committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person," Leonen wrote in the decision.
"The use of 'person' in the law instead of specifying the perpetrator's gender theoretically allows for the commission of rape even by women," the decision read.
According to the Court, women have suffered in history because of patriarchal rape laws, which were worded to punish men for taking women from their fathers or husbands, and not to protect women.
The Court added that the law has to end stereotypes portraying women as victims and men as the perpetrators.
"When laws are not gender-neutral, male victims suffer twice: once at the hands of their abuser and second, through the judicial system," the Court wrote.
It further recognized that "sexual violence devastates equally."
According to Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, in his separate concurring opinion, the expanded definition of rape cannot be applied retroactively as it would mean imposing a heavier penalty on the accused. Article 22 of the RPC only allows the retroactive application of criminal laws if it is to the advantage of the accused.
The woman received a prison sentence of nine to 16 years and was directed to pay P250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
WATCH: Discovering Vietnam in three days
June 9, 2026
WATCH: Save for retirement or enjoy life now? (Generations Ep. 21)
September 16, 2026
WATCH: Is Philippine cinema still thriving? (Generations Ep. 19)
September 2, 2026
WATCH: Pixar Summer Fest adventure at Hong Kong Disneyland
August 10, 2026