Decision - 28 - G.R. No. 227363 instances where a "lascivious conduct" committed against a child is covered by R.A. No. 7610 and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC [punishable by prision mayor], the offender should be held liable for violation of Section 5(b) ofR.A. No. 7610 [punishable by reclusion temporal medium], consistent with the declared policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. But when the offended party is below 12 years of age or is demented, the accused should be prosecuted and penalized under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, because the crime of sexual assault is considered statutory, whereby the evidence of force or intimidation is immaterial. Assuming that the elements of both violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and of Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) of the RPC are mistakenly alleged in the same Information - e.g., carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse was due to "force or intimidation" with the added phrase of "due to coercion or influence," one of the elements of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610; or in many instances wrongfully designate the crime in the Information as violation of "Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 761 O," although this may be a ground for quashal of the Information under Section 3(f) 71 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court and proven during the trial in a case where the victim who is 12 years old or under 18 did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the accused should still be prosecuted pursuant to the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, which is the more recent and special penal legislation that is not only consistent, but also strengthens the policies of R.A. No. 7610. Indeed, while R.A. No. 7610 is a special law specifically enacted to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development, We hold that it is contrary to the legislative intent of the same law if the lesser penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under Section 5(b) thereof would be imposed against the perpetrator of sexual intercourse with a child 12 years of age or below 18. Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, is not only the more recent law, but also deals more particularly with all rape cases, hence, its short title "The AntiRape Law of 1997." R.A. No. 8353 upholds the policies and principles of R.A. No. 7610, and provides a "stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse," as it imposes a more severe penalty of reclusion 71 Section 3. Ground~. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the followin: ~~u~ds: (f) That ?1ore th~n one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses IS prescnbed by law; ~