Men can also be sexual violence victims – SC

Metro Manila, Philippines – Men can be victims of sexual violence, the Supreme Court said in a recent ruling, noting that laws must be inclusive to protect those harmed.

The ruling, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, upheld the guilty verdict on a woman over acts of lasciviousness against her 11-year-old nephew with prison term of up to 16 years and ₱250,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

A court statement recalled the crime that took place during the victim’s visit to his father’s relatives. The aunt woke the boy up and asked him to remove his clothes and lie on her bed. 

She then engaged in sexual activity with the minor who did not protest out of curiosity, but “felt ashamed and considered ending his life” afterwards.

The aunt said the victim consented. The court noted that the age of consent at the time of the crime was 12. 

The victim was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. 

On the absence of a rape charge

“At the time of the offense, her acts did not fall within the legal definition of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC (Revised Penal Code),” said the court in explaining the charge of lasciviousness instead of rape. 

It noted that the previous law confined rape as “a man inserting his penis into a woman’s vagina, as well as the insertion of a penis or any object into another person’s genital.”

This has since been expanded through Republic Act No. 11648, or the law that strengthened legal protection against sexual violence and exploitation. 

The court said other countries have also implemented gender-neutral wording in their laws to better promote bodily autonomy and protection against sexual violence. 

It also noted that previous rape laws were rooted in patriarchal beliefs and were not passed to protect women from sexual violence as  these were only meant to punish men who “took away” women from their fathers and husbands. 

“[T]here must be recognition in our laws that sexual violence devastates equally regardless of how it was committed or, at the very least, a reevaluation of whether the historical justifications for the distinctions in our rape laws are still relevant – and, more importantly, fair,” Leonen was quoted as saying.