The Supreme Court has affirmed that men and boys can also be victims of sexual violence, warning that gender stereotypes and outdated interpretations of rape laws can prevent male victims from receiving equal protection under the law.
In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court En Banc convicted a woman of statutory acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew. The ruling, promulgated on Feb. 4, 2026, examined how Philippine rape laws have historically treated male victims differently from female victims.
The case involved a 2018 incident in which the woman subjected her nephew to sexual intercourse while he was visiting relatives. The child did not initially resist but later experienced severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts. He was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder linked to the abuse.
The woman argued that the boy had consented to the encounter. The Supreme Court rejected her defense, explaining that the child was only 11 years old and legally incapable of giving consent under the law in effect at the time.
Although lower courts had convicted the woman of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the appropriate offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court explained that the woman’s actions could not be classified as rape under the legal definition applicable in 2018. It pointed out that the same sexual act would have constituted rape if the genders of the perpetrator and victim had been reversed.
Republic Act No. 11648, enacted in 2022, subsequently expanded the definition of rape to recognize that the offense may be committed by any person, including women. However, the amendment could not be applied to the 2018 incident because it would retroactively impose a heavier criminal penalty on the accused.
The Supreme Court also challenged longstanding assumptions that sexual violence primarily involves male perpetrators and female victims. It warned that such beliefs can discourage abused men and boys from recognizing their experiences as sexual violence or seeking legal protection.
“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 stated.
While recognizing the historical discrimination experienced by women, the justices stressed that the justice system must protect all victims regardless of gender. The Court also called for a reassessment of whether the historical distinctions in rape laws remain relevant and fair.
The woman was sentenced to nine to 16 years in prison and ordered to pay ₱250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
