MANILA— The Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized that sexual violence can be committed against victims of any gender, as it affirmed the conviction of a woman who sexually abused her 11-year-old nephew.

In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc found the woman guilty of statutory acts of lasciviousness, stressing that laws must protect all victims of sexual abuse regardless of gender.

The incident occurred in 2018 when the child was visiting his father’s relatives. According to court records, the woman woke him while he was asleep, ordered him to undress, and made him lie on her bed before engaging in sexual intercourse with him.

The child initially did not resist because he was curious about what was happening. Afterward, however, he felt ashamed and considered taking his own life.

Following psychological debriefing and supportive psychotherapy, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the abuse.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals had found the woman guilty of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 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 high court rejected the argument, noting that the age of sexual consent in 2018 was 12. Since the victim was only 11, he was legally incapable of giving consent.

However, the SC clarified that the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rather than an offense under RA 7610.

Citing Gramatica v. People, the Court explained that RA 7610 applies when a minor appears to consent to sexual activity because of an adult’s coercion or influence. It does not cover situations in which a child is entirely unaware, unconscious, or legally incapable of consenting.

The SC also explained that the woman was charged with statutory acts of lasciviousness because, under the definition of rape in effect when the offense occurred, her actions did not fall within the crime’s legal scope.

At the time, Article 266-A of the RPC defined rape in terms that did not cover the circumstances of the case involving a female perpetrator and a male child.

SC calls for gender-neutral understanding of sexual violence

The Court discussed Republic Act No. 11648, enacted in 2022, which expanded the definition of rape to cover acts committed by any person against another person under circumstances specified by law.

It said the use of the gender-neutral term “person” allows women to be recognized as perpetrators of rape.

Despite the amendment, the SC observed that some rulings continued to characterize rape as a crime committed by men against women.

The Court traced this perception to older, patriarchal laws that treated women as the property of their fathers or husbands and were designed to punish men for taking them through rape.

It said such views perpetuate sexist stereotypes and exclude male victims, who may experience the same trauma but struggle to recognize or report the abuse because of prevailing social attitudes.

“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 SC noted that several countries have adopted gender-neutral rape laws to protect individuals’ bodily autonomy and their right to be free from non-consensual sexual acts.

It added that recognizing sexual abuse regardless of the victim’s or perpetrator’s gender can help challenge denial and encourage 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 the case, the Court said the child suffered intense shame and guilt and was left traumatized by the abuse. It also noted that the woman made him believe that he had agreed to and enjoyed what happened.

The SC observed that the incident would have been considered rape had the genders of the victim and perpetrator been reversed. However, the acts could not be classified as rape under the legal definition in force when the crime was committed.

The woman was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from nine to 16 years and ordered to pay P250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez said the sexual acts would qualify as rape under the expanded definition introduced by RA 11648.

However, he said the amendment could not be applied retroactively because doing so would impose a heavier penalty on the accused. Article 22 of the RPC allows criminal laws to be applied retroactively only when they are favorable to the accused.