SC: Male victims suffer equal trauma from sexual violence

MANILA, Philippines – Behind closed doors, in an air conditioned bedroom where an 11-year-old boy fell asleep during a family visit, a quiet violation eventually haunted him.

Overwhelmed by fear of an older relative, the little boy complied when his 25-year-old paternal aunt ordered him to undress. 

He remained silent at first—bound by youth, curiosity, and fear—only to carry a crushing weight of guilt and shame afterward.

Article continues after this advertisement

The silent trauma eventually turned into panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, and attempts to end his life.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

His case became the Supreme Court’s (SC) basis for declaring that sexual violence inflicts equal devastation regardless of gender.

In a full court decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC affirmed the conviction of the victim’s aunt for statutory acts of lasciviousness, upholding her sentence of up to 16 years in prison, plus payment of indemnities and damages worth P 250,000.

The victim kept his silence until 2019 when he revealed what happened to him through a group chat.

A psychological evaluation soon revealed that AAA was suffering from severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Article continues after this advertisement

His aunt had threatened to turn the narrative against him if he spoke out, manipulating his young mind into believing he had somehow consented to the sexual act.

The SC rejected this argument as it reminded the public that trauma reactions vary widely.

Article continues after this advertisement

The SC also pointed out that at that time, the age of sexual consent was 12 years old, and since the victim was only 11 years old, he was legally incapable of giving consent at the time.

It also clarified that the proper offense is acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, not the Anti-Child Abuse Law. 

Citing the case of Gramatica vs. People, the SC explained that the Anti-Child Abuse Law applies when a minor appears to consent to sexual activity due to coercion or influence of an adult.

In this case, however, the victim is unaware, or unable to give legal consent.

The SC also took note of the stark legal reality: under the definition of rape in effect in 2018 under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the crime was strictly defined around male penile penetration.

Had the victim been a girl and the perpetrator a man, the exact same act would have been prosecuted as rape.

But in this case, the abuser was a woman, thus the law created a legal void that forced the charge to be categorized as acts of lasciviousness instead.

“These beliefs about rape are not only sexist, but also exclude male victims who suffer the same trauma,” the court emphasized, noting that rigid stereotypes cause male survivors to suffer twice—”once at the hands of their abuser and second through the judicial system”.

The High Court highlighted that statutory updates, such as Republic Act No. 11648 enacted in 2022, have since expanded the definition of rape using gender-neutral terms like “any person” rather than strictly male perpetrators. 

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Rape, in whatever manner, is a desecration of a person’s will and body,” the court stated, calling for law enforcement and the public to evaluate sexual violence through the lens of power imbalances rather than rigid gender roles. /gsg