Decision - 47 - G.R. No. 227363 Gentleman's bill have on these existing laws, particularly provisions of the Revised Penal Code. That is why I tried to cite the case of rape-having sexual intercourse with a child below 12 years of age, seduction instances, qualified abduction, or acts of lasciviousness, involving minors; meaning to say, female below 18 years of age. There are already existing laws on this particular point. Senator Lina. Mr. President, there will also be a difference in penalties when the person or the victim is 12 years old or less. That is another effect. So, there is a difference. For example, in qualified seduction, the penalty present for all persons between age of 13 to 17 is prision correccional; for acts of lasciviousness under the proposal, similar acts will be prision mayor if the child is 12 years or less. . Under qualified seduction, the present penalty is prision correccional, minimum and medium. Under the proposal, it will be prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, and so on and so forth. Even in facts of lasciviousness, with consent of the offended party, there is still a higher penalty. In corruption of minors, there will be a higher penalty. When murder is committed, and the victim is under 12 years or less, there will be a higher penalty from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty when the culprit is below 12 years or less will be reclusion perpetua. The intention is really to provide a strong deterrence sand special protection against child abuse and exploitation. Senator Pimentel. So, the net effect of this amendment, therefore, is to amend the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, insofar as they relate to the victims who are females below the age of 12. Senator Lina. That will be the net effect, Mr. President. Senator Pimentel. We probably just have to tighten up our provisions to make that very explicit. Mr. President. Senator Lina. Yes. During the period of individual amendments, Mr. President, that can be well taken care of. 109 Quoting the sponsorship speech of Senator Rasul and citing the case of People v. Ritter, 110 Justice Caguioa asserts that the enactment of R.A. No. 7610 was a response of the legislature to the observation of the Court that there was a gap in the law because of the fack of criminal laws which adequately protect street children from exploitation of pedophiles. t/Y 109 110 Id. at 336-337. 272 Phil. 532 (1991 ).