OPINION
Power over gender
Sexual violence is ultimately about power, not gender. Its wounds are no lighter when the victim is a boy and the offender is a woman.
In XXX280727 v People (G.R. 280727, 4 February 2026), the Supreme Court En Banc, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, upheld a woman’s conviction for sexually abusing her 11-year-old nephew, affirming that males can also be victims of sexual violence.
On 7 September 2018, the boy visited his paternal relatives in Tondo, Manila, and stayed in his aunt’s room. She told him to remove his clothes and lie on her bed, after which she had sexual intercourse with him. He obeyed out of fear because she was older.
After the incident, the boy felt ashamed and even contemplated suicide. The abuse surfaced months later when his mother, who was working abroad, asked his uncle to speak to him about a group chat discussing his supposed sexual experience with a “college girl.”
A psychiatrist found that he suffered from anxiety, depression, flashbacks, nightmares and suicidal thoughts. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and prescribed antidepressants.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the aunt of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the aunt argued that the boy had consented to, and even enjoyed, the act.
The Court disagreed. At 11 years old, the boy was legally incapable of giving consent. The Court, however, modified the designation of the offense to statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
The Court explained that Section 5(b) of RA 7610 contemplates some semblance of consent, although defective because of an adult’s pressure or influence. It does not apply when consent is entirely absent, as when the child is unconscious, unaware of what is happening or legally incapable of consenting.
Nevertheless, for lascivious acts committed against a child below 12 years old under the law then applicable, RA 7610 still prescribes the heavier penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period. The aunt was thus sentenced to a maximum of 16 years, five months and nine days and ordered to pay P250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.
Significantly, the Court explained why she was not convicted of rape. When the crime occurred in 2018, the RPC defined rape by carnal knowledge as an act committed by a man against a woman. This gendered language excluded the aunt’s act from its scope.
Republic Act 11648, enacted in 2022, now provides that rape by carnal knowledge may be committed by “a person” against “another person.” This gender-neutral language recognizes that men too can be victims. In his separate concurrence, Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez explained that the expanded definition could not apply retroactively here because it would impose a heavier penalty.
Sexual violence is ultimately about power, not gender. Its wounds are no lighter when the victim is a boy and the offender a woman. The law must continually examine whether historical distinctions leave victims without the protection they deserve.
Every victim deserves to be heard, every injury deserves recognition, and every person deserves equal protection under the law.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.