20/07/2026
THEN & NOW: WHEN MEN ARE R***D
By Atty. Martsu Ressan Ladia
Founder & Managing Partner, Ladia & Associates Law Offices
Former Faculty Member, MSU College of Law, GenSan
Since the 1930s, r**e has traditionally been understood as carnal knowledge committed by a man against a woman. Under this long-held conception, the woman was invariably regarded as the victim, while the man was deemed the offender.
Several decades later, in 1997, the concept of r**e took on a new dimension. In addition to the traditional understanding of r**e as the insertion of a man's p***s into a woman's va**na, the law introduced a new classification known as r**e by s*xual assault. This occurs when any person, under circumstances constituting lewd design, inserts his p***s into another person's mouth or a**l or***ce, or inserts any instrument or object into the ge***al or a**l or***ce of another person.
This meant that, by virtue of the introduction of r**e by s*xual assault, the determination of who may be the victim and who may be the offender became gender-neutral. However, the determination remained, in essence, s*xual role-specific. Regardless of biological s*x, the one who assumes the role of the penetrator is deemed the offender, while the one who assumes the role of the penetrated is regarded as the victim.
So, under this legal framework, what happens when a man, while retaining his s*xual role as the penetrator, is forced to insert his p***s into the ge***alia, a**l or***ce, or mouth of another person? In that context, because the victim retains the s*xual role of the penetrator, the act falls within neither the traditional concept of r**e nor r**e by s*xual assault.
Not until 2022 did Congress redefine the crime of r**e. The law now provides, in part: โR**e is committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person...โ
What does this reworded definition tell us? Simply put, r**e has now shed the constraints of both gender and s*xual roles in determining who may be the victim and who may be the offender. Under the 2022 definition, a man may now be considered a r**e victim even while retaining the s*xual role of the penetrator.
The Supreme Courtโs ruling in G.R. No. 280727, February 4, 2026, is illustrative:
In the case, an 11-year-old boy one night was sleeping in her auntโs room, when his aunt woke him up and instructed him to stand in front of the bed and strip his clothes off. She then put a condom to the boyโs p***s, and ordered him to lie down on bed. After that, she climbed on top of the boy and do a pumping movement as she placed the boyโs p***s inside her va**na. After 10 minutes, she got off of the boy and threatened him not to tell anyone or else she will tell them that he r**ed her.
The Supreme Court convicted the accused only of statutory acts of lasciviousness because the offense was committed before the 2022 amendment to the definition of r**e. Since criminal laws generally cannot be applied retroactively when they are prejudicial to the accused, the Court could not convict her of r**e under the amended law.
The Court, however, wasted no time in explaining the significance of the new law. Although the amendment could not be applied to the accused because of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, it nevertheless clarified how this amended definition would govern future cases involving the same factual circumstances. In doing so, the Court not only resolved the controversy before it, but also provided much-needed guidance for litigants, prosecutors, trial courts, and the public on the proper application of the amended law.
R**e is, at its core, an act of s*xual violence. It knows no gender, nor is it confined to a particular s*xual role. It is a beastly violation of human dignity. Whoever commits it must be held equally accountable before the law.
