Decision - 36 - G.R. No. 227363 the former provision, "child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes sexual abuse, among other matters. In the latter provision, "sexual abuse" includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. Thus, the term "other sexual abuse" is broad enough to include all other acts of sexual abuse other than prostitution. Accordingly, a single act of lascivious conduct is punished under Section S(b ), Article III, when the victim is 12 years old and below 18, or 18 or older under special circumstances. In contrast, when the victim is under 12 years old, the proviso of Section 5(b) states that the perpetrator should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC for acts of lasciviousness, whereby the lascivious conduct itself is the sole element of the said crime. This is because in statutory acts of lasciviousness, as in statutory rape, the minor is presumed incapable of giving consent; hence, the other circumstances pertaining to rape - force, threat, intimidation, etc. are immaterial. Justice Caguioa also posits that the Senate deliberation on R.A. No. 7610 is replete with similar disquisitions that all show the intent to make the law applicable to cases involving child exploitation through prostitution, sexual abuse, child trafficking, pornography and other types of abuses. He stresses that the passage of the laws 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, such as the RPC and Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. He concludes that it is erroneous for us to rule that R.A. No. 7610 applies in each and every case where the victim although he or she was not proved, much less, alleged to be a child "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse." He invites us to go back to the ruling in Abella that "since R.A. No. 7610 is a special law referring to a particular class in society, the prosecution must show that the victim truly belongs to this particular class to warrant the application of the statute's provisions. Any doubt in this regard we must resolve in favor of the accused." Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe also disagrees that R.A. No. 7610 would be generally applicable to all cases of sexual abuse involving minors, except those who are under 12 years of age. Justice Perlas-Bernabe concurs with Jµstice Caguioa that Section 5(b ), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 only applies in instances where the child-victim is "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse" (EPSOSA). She asserts that her limited view, as opposed to the ponencia 's expansive view, is not only supported by several textual indicators both in law and the deliberations, but also squares with practical logic and reason. She also contends that R.A. No. 7610 was {71