The Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized that men can be victims of sexual violence and that their reactions to abuse should not be judged against gender-based stereotypes.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC En Banc affirmed the conviction of a woman for sexually abusing her 11-year-old nephew but clarified that the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, rather than lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610.

“Sexual violence devastates equally, regardless of gender. However, people may vary in their reactions and the way they cope with distressing situations. Thus, the fact that a person’s reaction to an incident is different from what is deemed ‘standard,’ does not diminish the credibility of their claims,” the Court ruled.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a September 7, 2018 incident in which a woman sexually abused her 11-year-old nephew by ordering him to undress and lie on a bed before placing a condom on his penis and engaging in sexual intercourse with him.

The boy testified that he initially did not protest out of curiosity but subsequently experienced shame and emotional distress.

He later disclosed the incident to his maternal uncle, while a subsequent psychological assessment found that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming that the case arose from a custody dispute between her and the boy’s mother.

On December 2, 2022, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness under Republic Act No. 7610.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction on August 30, 2024, but modified the prison sentence. It denied her motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2025.

Before the SC, the accused challenged the boy’s credibility, arguing that his reactions were inconsistent with those expected of a sexual abuse victim. She also questioned the RTC’s factual findings because the judge who decided the case had not personally heard the witnesses.

The principal issue was whether the CA erred in affirming her conviction for acts of lasciviousness.

THE RULING

The SC denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification, finding the boy’s testimony credible and sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court rejected the argument that the boy’s reactions undermined his credibility, emphasizing that victims respond differently to sexual abuse and that failure to resist or protest does not necessarily make their accounts unreliable.

It likewise ruled that a replacement trial judge may assess witness credibility and decide a case based on the record, even without personally hearing the witnesses.

Applicable offense and modified penalty

Applying Gramatica v. People, the SC clarified that the accused was liable for statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, rather than lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

The Court distinguished minors who appear to consent because of adult coercion or influence from children legally incapable of consent, such as the 11-year-old victim.

Although Republic Act No. 11648 subsequently raised the age of sexual consent to 16 and introduced gender-neutral language into the definition of rape, the SC applied the law in force when the offense occurred in 2018.

Consequently, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate prison term of nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 16 years, five months, and nine days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

It also ordered the accused to pay ₱150,000 in civil indemnity, ₱50,000 in moral damages, and ₱50,000 in exemplary damages, with six percent annual interest from the finality of the decision until full payment.

Recognition of male victims of sexual violence

The SC further examined how gender-based distinctions in rape laws affect the recognition of male victims, noting that the law applicable in 2018 defined rape through sexual intercourse as a man having carnal knowledge of a woman.

The Court explained that the accused’s conduct did not fall within the statutory definitions of rape at the time, although it would have constituted rape had the genders of the offender and victim been reversed.

It criticized gender stereotypes portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators, emphasizing that sexual violence involves an abuse of power and bodily autonomy regardless of gender.

“At its core, rape is an issue of power—an imposition of someone’s dominance to violate the bodily autonomy of another,” the decision stated.

While acknowledging the historical injustices experienced by women, the SC stressed that recognizing male victims does not diminish the need to protect women against sexual violence.

The Court consequently questioned whether the historical justifications for distinctions in rape laws remain relevant and fair.

“Similarly, there 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,” the decision stated.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.