MANILA, Philippines — Men can also be victims of sexual violence, stressing that the law must protect all victims of abuse regardless of gender, the Supreme Court ruled.
In an en banc decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the high tribunal found a woman guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew.
Court records indicated that the child, who visited his father's relatives, was asleep when the woman woke him up, ordered him to remove his clothes, and made him lie on her bed. She then engaged in sexual intercourse with him.
Curious about what was happening, the child did not protest at first but after the incident, he felt ashamed and considered ending his life.
The child was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the sexual abuse as indicated by a psychological debriefing and supportive psychotherapy, the high tribunal said.
The woman, same records showed, was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act 7610 or the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act by both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
The woman had argued that the child had consented to the sexual act but the high court disagreed.
It explained that at the time of the incident in 2018, the age of sexual consent was 12 years old. Because the child was only 11, he was deemed legally incapable of giving consent. (This has since been increased to under 16 years old following the enactment of RA 11648 in 2022.)
Leonen in the same ruling clarified, however, that the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not RA 7610.
Citing a jurisprudence, the Court explained that RA 7610 applies when a minor appears to consent to sexual activity due to the coercion or influence of an adult. It does not apply when a minor is entirely unaware, unconscious, or unable to give legal consent, as in this case.
The woman was charged with statutory acts of lasciviousness because, at the time of the offense, her acts did not fall within the legal definition of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, the ruling said.
The law then limited the act of rape to 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, it stressed.
However, the high tribunal said RA 11648, enacted in 2022, expanded the definition of rape, now stating that it may be committed by any person who has carnal knowledge of another person under the circumstances specified by law.
The use of the term "person" in the law instead of specifying the perpetrator's gender allows for the commission of rape even by women, the high court said.
Despite this amendment, the Court noted that some rulings continue to describe rape as a crime committed by men against women. It traced this view to older, patriarchal rape laws that were originally designed not to protect women from violence, but to punish men for taking women—who were considered the property of their fathers or husbands—through rape.
“These beliefs about rape are not only sexist, but also exclude male victims who suffer the same trauma. The failure to recognize that they can be victims of rape can also make it harder for them to realize that they were violated,” Leonen said.
"Thus, while there must be recognition of the historical injustice women have suffered, the law, as well as its interpretation, must be resilient enough to provide equal protection to all victims and guard against stereotypes that all women are victims and all men are perpetrators. When laws are not gender-neutral, male victims suffer twice: once at the hands of their abuser and second through the judicial system," he added.
The Court reiterated that the sexual violence suffered by the child caused him intense shame and guilt and left him traumatized. The woman also made him believe that he had agreed to and enjoyed what was done to him.
If the genders had been reversed, the incident would have been considered rape. However, as it stands, the acts penalized do not fall within the legal definition of rape as provided by law at the time of the crime, it explained.
As a result, the woman was sentenced to prison for nine to 16 years and ordered to pay damages.
