The Supreme Court has stressed that sexual violence can be committed against men and that victims must receive legal protection regardless of gender, rejecting the notion that rape and other forms of sexual abuse are crimes exclusively committed by men against women.
In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court en banc upheld the conviction of a woman for statutory acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew.
The incident happened in 2018 when the child was visiting the home of his father’s relatives.
While he was asleep, the woman woke him, told him to remove his clothes and made him lie on her bed before engaging in a sexual act with him.
The child initially did not resist because he was curious about what was happening.
Afterward, however, he felt ashamed and even considered ending his life.
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 Supreme Court, the woman argued that the child had consented to the act.
The high court rejected her argument, explaining that the age of sexual consent in 2018 was 12.
Since the child was only 11, he was legally incapable of giving consent.
However, the court clarified that the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, rather than an offense under RA 7610.
The court explained that RA 7610 applies when a child 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, as in this case.
The woman was charged with statutory acts of lasciviousness because the conduct did not fall within the definition of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in effect when the incident occurred.
At the time, the law defined rape in terms that did not cover the circumstances involving a female perpetrator and a male victim in this case.
The Supreme Court also discussed Republic Act No. 11648, which was enacted in 2022 and expanded the legal definition of rape.
The amended law uses the term “person” in defining who may commit the offense, allowing women to be recognized as perpetrators of rape under the circumstances specified by law.
The court noted that some rulings continued to describe rape as a crime committed by men against women despite the amendment.
It traced this understanding to older rape laws shaped by patriarchal views, which treated women as the property of their fathers or husbands and framed rape as an offense against the men who supposedly owned them.
The Supreme Court said such views are sexist and disregard male victims who can experience the same trauma from sexual violence.
It also warned that failing to recognize men as possible victims could prevent them from understanding that they have been abused.
The woman was sentenced to imprisonment of nine to 16 years and ordered to pay P250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
The decision reinforces that sexual violence must be understood beyond traditional gender assumptions and that the law must recognize and protect victims regardless of whether they are male or female.
📷 Inquirer.net
Comments