Decision - 65 - G.R. No. 227363 a good law despite the enactment of R.A. No. 8353 for there is no irreconcilable inconsistency between their provisions. When the lascivious act is not covered by R.A. No. 8353, then Article 336 of the RPC is applicable, except when the lascivious conduct is covered by R.A. No. 7610. We are also not unmindful of the fact that the accused who commits acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5 (b) ofR.A. No. 7610, suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, than the one who commits Rape Through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prisi6n mayor. In People v. Chingh, 142 We noted that the said fact is undeniably unfair to the child victim, and it was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. We held that despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still a good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition." 143 In Dimakuta, We added that where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium and the said act is, likewise, covered by sexual assault under Art. 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, which is punishable by prisi6n mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, where the law provides the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the offended party is a child. But if the victim is at least eighteen ( 18) years of age, the offender should be liable under Art. 266A, par. 2 of the RPC and not R.A. No. 7610, unless the victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The reason for the foregoing is that with respect to lascivious conduct, R.A. No. 7610 affords special protection and stronger deterrence against child abuse, as compared to R.A. No. 83.53 which specifically amended the RPC provisions on rape. Finally, despite the enactment of R.A. No. 8353 more than 20 years ago in 1997, We had been consistent in our rulings in Larin, Olivarez, and Garingarao, Quimvel and Caoili, all of which uphold the intent of R.A. No. 7610 to provide special protection of children and stronger deterrence against child abuse. Judicial stability compels to stand by, but not to abandon, our sound rulings: [1] that Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 142 143 66 I Phil. 208 (20 I I). R.A. No. 7610, Art. I, Sec. 3(a). or