The Supreme Court ruled that rape by sexual intercourse may now be committed by either a man or a woman following the enactment of Republic Act No. 11648 in 2022, which amended the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Rape Law.

In a decision dated 4 February 2026 in Annabelle Maliclic v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 280727), the high court said the law now recognizes that women may be held criminally liable for rape through carnal knowledge and that men may be recognized as victims of the offense.

The ruling came as the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Annabelle Maliclic, who was found guilty over sexual acts committed against her 11-year-old nephew.

While the offense was prosecuted under the law in effect when it was committed, the court said Republic Act No. 11648 now makes rape by sexual intercourse a gender-neutral crime.

Maliclic was initially convicted by the Regional Trial Court, a ruling later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The Supreme Court modified the conviction, ruling that because the victim was below 12 years old and legally incapable of giving consent, the proper offense was statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

The court explained that before the passage of Republic Act No. 11648, the Anti-Rape Law defined rape by sexual intercourse as an offense committed "by a man" against "a woman."

However, the amendments now provide that rape may be committed "by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person," making the provision gender-neutral.

The Supreme Court said the revised wording clearly reflects Congress' intent to include women as possible offenders and men as possible victims, provided all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are established.

The court also said limiting rape by sexual intercourse to male offenders and female victims was not only misogynistic but also deprived male victims of equal legal protection despite suffering the same trauma.

It added that failing to recognize men as possible rape victims could prevent them from realizing that they had been violated and limit their access to legal remedies.

Despite the legal change, the Supreme Court stressed that the amendments under Republic Act No. 11648 could not be applied in Maliclic's case because the offense was committed in 2018, four years before the law took effect.

The court cited the principle of prospectivity, which provides that criminal laws generally cannot be applied retroactively when doing so would be unfavorable to the accused.