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.