. Decision - 44 - G.R. No. 227363 emphasize the fact that this is a special sector in our society that needs to be given special protection. So this bill is now being presented for consideration by the Chamber. 104 The aforequoted parts of the deliberation in Senate Bill No. 1209 likewise negate the contention of Justice Perlas-Bernabe that "to suppose that R.A. No. 7610 would generally cover acts already punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) would defy the operational logic behind the introduction of this special law." They also address the contention of Justice Caguioa that the passage of the same law was the Senate's act of heeding the call of the Court to afford protection to a special class of children, and not to cover any and all crimes against children that are already covered by other penal laws, like the RPC and P.D. No. 603. As pointed out by Senator Lina, the other aspect of S.B. No. 1209, is to increase penalties on acts committed against children; thus, direct reference was made to the Articles in the RPC and in the Articles in the Child and Youth Welfare Code that are amended because of the increase in the penalties. The said legislative intent is consistent with the policy to provide stronger deterrence and special protection of children against child abuse, and is now e1nbodied under Section 10, Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, viz.: For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve ( 12) years age. Justice Perlas-Bernabe and Justice Caguioa are both correct that R.A. No. 7610 was enacted to fill the gaps in the law, as observed by the Court in People v. Ritter. However, they may have overlooked that fact that the Congressional deliberations and the express provisions of R.A. No. 7610 all point to the intention and policy to systematically address the problems of children below 15 years of age [later increased to below 18], which Senator Lina emphasized as a special sector in our society that needs to be given special protection. 105 104 105 Record ofthe Senate, Vol. I, No. 7, August I, 1991, pp. 258-259. (Emphasis added). Id. ~