Decision - 57 - G.R. No. 227363 As can be read, repeal is not the only fate that may befall statutory provisions that are inconsistent with RA 8353. It may be that mere amendment or modification would suffice to reconcile the inconsistencies resulting from the latter law's enactment. In this case, Art. 335 of the RPC, which previously penalized rape through carnal knowledge, has been replaced by Art. 266-A. Thus, the reference by Art. 336 of the RPC to any of the circumstances mentioned on the erstwhile preceding article on how the crime is perpetrated should now refer to the circumstances covered by Art. 266-A as introduced by the Anti-Rape Law. We are inclined to abide by the Court's long-standing policy to disfavor repeals by implication for laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject. The failure to particularly mention the law allegedly repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal the said law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. Here, RA 8353 made no specific mention of any RPC provision other than Art. 335 as having been amended, modified, or repealed. And as demonstrated, the Anti Rape Law, on the one hand, and Art. 336 _of the RPC, on the other, are not irreconcilable. The only construction that can be given to the phrase ''preceding article" is that Art. 336 of the RPC now refers to Art. 266-A in the place of the repealed Art. 335. It is, therefore, erroneous to claim that Acts ·of Lasciviousness can no longer be prosecuted under the RPC. It is likewise incorrect to claim that Art. 336 had been rendered inoperative by the Anti-Rape Law and argue in the same breath the applicability of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. xx x xx xx If Art. 336 then ceased to be a penal provision in view of its alleged incompleteness, then so too would Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 be ineffective since it defines and punishes the prohibited act by way of reference to the RPC provision. The decriminalization of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, as per Justice Leonen's theory, would not sufficiently be supplanted by RA 7610 and RA 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Law (Anti-VAWC Law). Under RA 7610, only minors can be considered victims of the enumerated forms of abuses therein. Meanwhile, the Anti-VA WC law limits the victims of sexual abuses covered by the RA to a wife, former wife, or any women with whom the offender has had a dating or sexual relationship, or against her child. Clearly, these laws do not provide ample protection against sexual offenders who do not discriminate in selecting their victims. One does not have to be a child before he or she can be victimized by acts of lasciviousness. Nor does one have to be a woman with an existing or prior relationship with the offender to fall prey. Anyone can be a victim of another's lewd design. And if the Court will subscribe to Justice Leonen's position, it will render a large portion of our demographics (i.e., adult ~