The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that men can also be victims of sexual violence, stressing that the law must protect all victims of abuse regardless of gender.
In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc found a woman guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew.
The incident happened while the child was visiting the home of his father’s relatives. While the child was asleep, 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.
The child did not protest at first because he was curious about what was happening. But after the incident, he felt ashamed and considered ending his life.
Following psychological debriefing and supportive psychotherapy, the child was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the sexual abuse.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found the woman guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of the Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.
Before the SC, the woman argued that the child had consented to the sexual act.
The SC disagreed.
It explained that at the time of the incident in 2018, the age of sexual consent was 12 years old.[1] Because the child was only 11, he was deemed legally incapable of giving consent.
The Court clarified, however, that the proper offense is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not RA 7610.
Citing Gramatica v. People, the SC 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 SC also noted that 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 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.
However, 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.
According to the Court, 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.
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.
The SC held that 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. The Court stressed:
“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.”
The Court noted that many countries have adopted gender-neutral rape laws to protect everyone’s right to make decisions about their own bodies and to safeguard them from non-consensual sexual acts. Properly recognizing and identifying this type of abuse helps challenge social attitudes of denial and encourages both male and female victims to seek support and legal remedies.
“[T]here must be recognition in our laws that sexual violence devastates equally regardless of how it was committed or, at the very least, a reevaluation of whether the historical justifications for the distinctions in our rape laws are still relevant—and, more importantly, fair.”
In this case, the SC noted 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 agreed to and enjoyed what was done to him. The SC said that 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.
The woman was sentenced to prison for nine to 16 years and ordered to pay PHP 250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez held that the sexual acts in this case would be considered rape under RA 11648’s expanded definition of the crime. However, the definition cannot be applied retroactively because it would impose a heavier penalty on the accused, contrary to Article 22 of the RPC, which allows the retroactive application of criminal laws only when favorable to the accused. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 280727 (XXX280727 v. People), February 4, 2026, and the Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Lopez.
[1] This has since been increased to under 16 years old following the enactment of Republic Act No. 11648 in 2022.
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office on 30 October 2026.
This post is a republication compliant with the Supreme Court Credit Attribution Policy.
Leave a Reply