Author: user user

Fifty-eight people including passengers and crewmembers were rescued when a roll-on roll-off vessel tilted near a port in this town shortly after midnight yesterday.

The incident involving the motor vessel Virgen de Peñafrancia II occurred at around 12:45 a.m. some 10 meters away from the port of Ungos.

Responding personnel of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) evacuated all 40 passengers and 18 crewmembers of the distressed vessel.

The municipal disaster risk reduction and management office said all passengers and crewmembers were in good physical condition.

Authorities said they spotted a thin oil sheen near the rear portion of the vessel.

The PCG said it would deploy spill booms to prevent a possible oil spill.

Ship operator Starhorse Shipping Lines Inc. said the Virgen de Peñafrancia II had just completed ramping operation when the ropes securing the vessel snapped due to strong water current.

The shipping firm gave assurance that it would coordinate with the PCG and other concerned authorities to determine the circumstances surrounding the incident.

College of St. Benilde went to Matthew Jucom in the first three quarters and John Morales in the fourth and final canto as it survived a late, furious Lyceum fightback and escaped with a 107-103 victory in NCAA Season 102 seniors basketball at the San Andres Gym.

Jucom fired a match high 28 points, including 18 in the first half, while Morales dropped eight of his 18 markers in the final period that doused cold water on the Pirates’ hot, desperate pursuit.

The win pushed the Blazers back to the Group A helm alongside the Jose Rizal Bombers on 8-3 records, half a game ahead of the San Beda Lions (7-3), while strengthening their chances of claiming the twice-to-beat quarterfinal edge for the top two finishers in bracket play.

‘Mahalaga po itong panalo na ito dahil dikit dikit kami ng JRU at San Beda,’ said Morales.

In the other game, Emilio Aguinaldo edged Perpetual Help, 92-89, in overtime to improve to 5-6 in Group B.

The Altas dropped to 3-8.

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a woman for statutory acts of lasciviousness after she sexually abused her 11-year-old nephew, stressing that men can also be victims of sexual violence.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC said victims should not be expected to react in a particular way after an incident of sexual abuse.

‘Sexual violence devastates equally, regardless of gender. However, people may vary in their reactions and the way they cope with distressing situations,’ the decision read, which was released to the public on Friday, October 30.

‘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,’ it added.

What happened

The case stemmed from an incident on Sept. 7, 2018, when the accused, the boy’s paternal aunt, allegedly woke him (AAA280727) in the middle of the night and ordered him to remove his clothes and lie on the bed.

She then put a condom on his penis, got on top of him and inserted his penis into her vagina. The incident lasted about 10 minutes.

The accused allegedly warned the boy not to tell anyone, threatening to accuse him of rape if he did.

The boy said he initially did not resist because he was curious about what would happen.

On Feb. 16, 2019, the boy’s maternal uncle confronted him about a group chat discussing his alleged experience with a college girl. The boy then told his uncle about what happened between him and the accused.

A doctor then conducted a psychological debriefing and provided supportive psychotherapy to the boy. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after experiencing anxiety, depression, flashbacks, nightmares and suicidal thoughts.

The accused denied the allegations and argued that the boy’s behavior showed that he had consented to or enjoyed the incident. She also questioned his credibility, pointing to his initial lack of resistance and his alleged reactions during the incident.

The accused’s defense also presented the testimonies of her sister, mother and brother. She claimed that she had slept in another room with her siblings on the night of the incident, while the boy slept with his cousin, grandmother and father. Her sister and mother corroborated her account.

Her brother, who was also the boy’s father, claimed that the case was filed against her because of a custody dispute between him and his estranged wife.

RTC, CA rulings

In a Dec. 2, 2022 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The RTC sentenced her to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

It also ordered her to pay the boy P50,000 in civil indemnity, P50,000 in moral damages and P50,000 in exemplary damages.

The accused appealed the ruling, but the Court of Appeals (CA) denied her appeal in an Aug. 30, 2024 decision. It upheld her conviction but increased the maximum prison term to 16 years, five months and nine days of reclusion temporal.

The CA denied her motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2025. The accused then brought the case before the Supreme Court.

SC on male victims of sexual violence

The SC rejected the accused’s arguments questioning the boy’s credibility, including her claim that his behavior indicated that he enjoyed the incident.

The high court said victims should not be expected to resist or respond in a particular way when they are intimidated or under emotional stress.

‘Victims of rape or sexual abuse should not be burdened to resist or to have a standard reaction when intimidated and under emotional stress,’ the high court said.

‘Thus, AAA280727’s reaction, which differs from what is deemed to be normal, does not invalidate his claims.’

The high court also discussed how the country’s rape laws have historically treated sexual violence involving male victims.

It noted that, under the wording of the law before Republic Act No. 11648, rape through sexual intercourse was defined as a man having carnal knowledge of a woman. This left a gap in cases where a woman forced a man to have sexual intercourse with her by causing the insertion of his penis into her vagina.

The SC said that even more recent rulings continued to interpret rape in the context of male penile insertion rather than broadly covering intercourse involving a penis and a vagina, regardless of who initiates it.

‘These views on rape are not only misogynistic, they also disenfranchise male victims who have less redress in law, but are inflicted with the same trauma,’ the high court said.

‘Further, the lack of recognition that males can be victims also impairs their ability to recognize that they have been violated in the first place,’ it added.

It noted that while the law must recognize the historical injustice suffered by women, its interpretation must also protect victims regardless of gender.

‘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 said.

The high court also described rape as an issue of power and an imposition of dominance that violates another person’s bodily autonomy.

‘In this case, petitioner used her age and moral ascendancy to coerce a then 11-year-old AAA280727 into satisfying her lewd intentions,’ it said.

Woman can be held liable for rape under amended law

In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez said the acts committed by the accused would constitute rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 11648.

‘These acts are constitutive of rape under Republic Act No. 11648,’ Lopez said.

He explained that the amendment expanded the definition of rape through sexual intercourse to cover any person who has carnal knowledge of another person, regardless of gender.

‘With the advent of Republic Act No. 11648, rape through sexual intercourse can be consummated by any person having carnal knowledge with anyone, regardless of gender,’ Lopez said.

‘Thus, a woman can be held liable of rape through sexual intercourse for having a carnal knowledge with a man, without the latter’s consent, under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.’

However, Lopez pointed out that the incident happened in 2018, before RA No. 11648 took effect in 2022.

He said the amendment could not be applied retroactively to the accused because doing so would result in a heavier penalty, which would not be favorable to her under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

‘However, the said acts were committed in 2018 before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 11648,’ he said.

‘Nonetheless, as Republic Act No. 11648 still does not apply to the present case. XXX280727 must be held liable for the crime of statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.’

Penalty

The SC held the accused liable for statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

It sentenced her to imprisonment ranging from 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.

The high court also ordered her to pay the victim P150,000 in civil indemnity, P50,000 in moral damages and P50,000 in exemplary damages, with 6% annual interest from the finality of the decision until full payment.

Halfway through the -ber months but as Zara Larsson said, summer isn’t over yet.

The Swedish pop star returned to the Philippines for her first solo concert, bringing her ‘Midnight Sun’ tour to the Araneta Coliseum last October 30.

Dubbed the “Queen of Summer,” Larsson danced to local classic “Bongga Ka Day!” backstage before facing her fans, exciting everyone ahead of the show.

She then let the Filipino crowd experience a never-ending midnight sun as she performed the tour’s titular song.

Beyond the music and performances, Larsson also shared her ambitions and expressed hopes of returning to the Philippines for a stadium show.

“My ambition is the reason why I’m here today in Manila, on a sold-out show. But the ambition is a blessing and a curse ’cause you always want more,” she told the audience. “Next time when I come back, I want to be in a stadium. I have a lot of ambition and you should too ’cause you can do anything.”

The singer also took a moment to reflect on how far she had come in her music career before performing “Saturn’s Return,” which she described as one of her favorite songs she has ever written.

“I’ve been doing this for a very long time. I released my first song when I was 15 and now I’m 28, and this right here, this is my dream,” Larsson shared. “You guys are making my dream come true. So thank you so, so much.”

The Filipino crowd also finally got to experience “Lush Life” as Larsson invited a fan named Louise onstage to dance and perform the song’s iconic choreography.

Louise then revealed that they had taught the singer the word “bakla,” the Tagalog word for “gay,” during her South Korea stop in early October. They also asked the pop star to write the word on a custom T-shirt.

“I love that. I love bakla… I will be nothing without my baklas,” Larsson – a vocal ally of the queer community – exclaimed, drawing loud screams from the crowd.

The interaction did not end there, as the singer offered Louise a chance to drink from her personal tumbler, making the fan experience even more memorable.

Larsson also treated attendees to a mix of nostalgic hits and newer collaborations. Among the songs on the setlist were “I Would Like,” “Ain’t My Fault,” “Ruin My Life,” and “Symphony,” as well as “She Did It Again” and “Stateside.”

The artist closed the show with another performance of “Midnight Sun,” with fans joining the “dolphin lift” trend – one of her concert traditions in which attendees lift one another into the air, recreating the song’s choreography.

The singer first performed in the country at the “In the Mix” music festival in 2017 at the Mall of Asia Arena, alongside other international artists including Dua Lipa and 5 Seconds of Summer.

The “Midnight Sun” tour marks the singer’s fifth concert tour, which kicked off in Germany a year ago. The pop star will next head to Thailand for the final stop of the tour’s Asia leg.

“Sa langit, madaming bigas.’

I still remember reading this line in my older brother Leonie’s high school valedictory speech after nosing around our father’s filing cabinet when I was around 10 years old. It was the answer of a farmer’s young child to my brother on what the boy imagined heaven to be. It was an innocent and bittersweet indictment of the state of Philippine agriculture then. I guess the boy’s answer stuck to Leonie, who subsequently devoted his entire life to try to help make the boy’s dream a reality in the country.

After graduating summa cum laude from the Ateneo, he went straight to join our father in the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF), one of the oldest and the most reputable farmer organizations in the Philippines. He has been with the FFF for over 50 years, served several terms in Congress representing the farmers and even became the secretary of agriculture in the early 2000s.

Leonie is now 77 years old and still trying. The other day, the police went to his house to serve a warrant of arrest. As the song goes, ‘…planting rice is never fun.’ It could even land you in jail.

My brother and others in the farmer sector have been questioning why the Philippine Planter’s Products Inc. (PPI), which they claim appears to be like a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), has been heavily importing rice to the country. Under current laws, particularly RA 11203 and RA 12078, government entities cannot freely import rice except under extraordinary emergency conditions authorized through specific executive orders or presidential action. Historically a fertilizer and agrochemical company, PPI hardly imported any rice prior to 2025. However, it heavily started doing so in 2026. This year, PPI has reportedly imported close to two million sacks of rice worth billions of pesos and has become the second largest rice importer in the Philippines. In response to my brother’s questions, PPI filed a cyber-libel case against him, claiming that it is not a GOCC.

What is interesting is that approximately 80 percent of the shares of PPI is held by Planter’s Foundation Inc. (PFI) which was created by the government. In 1974, the government placed most of PPI’s shares under the custody of PFI ‘…to be held in trust for millions of Filipino farmers.’ PFI is chaired by the incumbent secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA) who exercises voting rights and nominates candidates to the board of PPI. In a July 2019 post in its own website, the DA described it as ‘…a private agricultural company sequestered by the government a few years back and is now under the administrative control of the DA.’ It has been reported that in several government directories, such as those of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG), the PPI is listed as a GOCC. Do all these constitute or imply effective government ownership and/or control? I don’t know, you tell me!

I understand that a primary legal basis of PPI’s claim seems to be a 2008 Supreme Court (SC) ruling involving PPI vs Fertiphil Corporation. According to some summaries I read, the SC noted that both PPI and Fertiphil Corporation were private corporations under Philippine laws as part of that decision. I find it ironic that the central decision of that SC ruling was to order PPI to return millions of pesos in ‘capital recovery’ levy it had collected from Fertiphil Corporation during the martial law years. It declared a 1985 Marcos Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1465, which authorized ‘…the collection of fertilizer levy to bail out and benefit PPI,’ as unconstitutional and that to allow PPI to keep it would be ‘unjust enrichment.’

At the very, very least, PPI’s ownership structure; its apparent treatment as a GOCC by several government agencies and subsequent relevant laws such as the GOCC Governance Act of 2011 (RA 10149) all provide sufficient and good faith bases to question the real status of PPI and destroy any claim of an outright and malicious falsehood.

Moreover, the question is not frivolous and involves a clear and important public interest. Why is it considered malicious for a farmer leader representing rice farmers to question such an entity’s huge imports that they believe threatens the welfare of the country’s rice farmers?

If we ask the young children of farmers today on what they think heaven is like, as my brother did over half a century ago, I wonder what they will answer now.

Sa Pilipinas, madaming imported na bigas?