Decision - 23 - G.R. No. 227363 evidence is "coercion and influence" or "force and intimidation" for the purpose of determining which between R.A. No. 7610 or the RPC should the accused be prosecuted under in cases of acts of lasciviousness or rape where the offended party is 12 years of age or below 18. To recap, We explained in Abay61 that under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 in relation to R.A. No. 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under paragraph 1(d), Article 266-A of the RPC, and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d]) of the RPC. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy might be prejudiced. Besides, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, because under Section 48 of the RPC (on complex crimes), a felony under the RPC (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. Considering that the victim in Abay was more than 12 years old when the crime was committed against her, and the Information against appellant stated that the .child was 13 years old at the time of the incident, We held that appellant may be prosecuted either for violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph l[d]) of the RPC. We observed that while the Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecution's evidence only established that appellant sexually violated the person of the child through force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to submit to his bestial designs. Hence, appellant was found guilty of rape under paragraph l(a), Article 266-A of the RPC. In Pangilinan, where We were faced with the same dilemma because all the elements of paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC and Section 5(b) ofR.A. No. 7610 were present, it was ruled that the accused can be charged with either rape or child abuse and be convicted therefor. However, We observed that rape was established, since the prosecution's evidence proved that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim through force and intimidation QY threatening her with a samurai. Citing the discussion in Abay, We ruled as follows: As in the present case, appellant can indeed be charged with either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. The prosecution's evidence established that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation by threatening her with a samurai. Thus, rape was 61 Supra note 59, at 395-396. tfY