Supreme Court: Men can also be victims of sexual violence under amended law

MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized that men can also be victims of sexual violence, while recognizing that women may also be perpetrators of rape under the expanded definition of the crime.

In a decision promulgated on February 4, 2026, the SC en banc found a woman guilty of statutory acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew, clarifying the legal distinction between lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610 and acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Court records showed that in 2018, the minor’s paternal aunt called him to her bed, ordered him to remove his clothes, and allegedly inserted a condom into his penis before touching it and inserting it into her vagina.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found the woman guilty of acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

However, the SC clarified that the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, rather than lascivious conduct under RA 7610.

Citing its ruling in Gramatica v. People, the high court explained that lascivious conduct under RA 7610 applies when a minor gives a semblance of consent, although defective, to sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct because of an adult’s coercion or influence.

“It does not apply where a minor is entirely unaware, unconscious, or, in this case, unable to give legal consent,” the SC said in the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

The court noted that the victim was only 11 years old at the time and was therefore incapable of giving legal consent.

The SC also explained that the woman was convicted of statutory acts of lasciviousness because, at the time of the incident in 2018, her actions did not fall within the then-existing legal definition of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC.

Under the law at the time, rape was defined as a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under certain circumstances.

The SC pointed out that Republic Act No. 11648, enacted in 2022, expanded the definition of rape by replacing the gender-specific wording with the term “person.”

Under the amended Article 266-A of the RPC, rape may be committed by a person who has carnal knowledge of another person under any of the circumstances provided by law.

The amendment also covered a legal gap in the previous definition, which did not expressly account for situations in which a woman, without consent, inserts a man’s penis into her vagina.

“Thus, there is a void where the penalized act is committed by a woman who, without consent, puts a man’s penis into her vagina,” the SC said.

The court said the use of the word “person” instead of specifying the perpetrator’s gender theoretically allows women to also commit rape.

“That rape through carnal knowledge may only be committed by a man against a woman is entrenched in the patriarchal roots of rape laws which were originally created not to penalize the violence done to women, but rather to punish men who stole women-who were regarded as properties of their husbands and fathers-through rape and abduction,” the SC said.

It added that traditional views of rape are not only misogynistic but also leave male victims with fewer legal remedies despite experiencing similar trauma.

“Men can also be victims of sexual violence,” the court said.

The SC added that sexual violence can be equally devastating regardless of a victim’s gender, although individuals may respond to and cope with traumatic experiences differently.

“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 said.