DISSENTING OPINION CAGUIOA, J.: The People's evidence show that: 7-year-old AAA lived with her father and siblings in a house close to her grandfather's; accused Quimvel worked for AAA's grandfather as caretaker of ducks and lived in the grandfather's house; one evening, AAA was left alone with her siblings when her father left the house to buy kerosene; on that night, Quimvel brought a vegetable viand to AAA's house; whereupon, AAA asked Quimvel to stay with her and her siblings because they were afraid; Quimvel acceded; AAA fell asleep and awakened to Quimvel's leg over her body and his hand being inserted into her shorts, then caressing her vagina; she removed Quimvel's hand from inside her shorts; Quimvel left just as AAA's father arrived. Quimvel was indicted for the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).[1] He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and sentenced to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period as minimum to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and nineteen (19) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum.[2] The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.[3] On petition for review on certiorari before this Court, Quimvel asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that assuming that he is guilty, he could only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.[4] The ponencia affirms his conviction for acts of lasciviousness m relation to Section 5(b). I dissent. The majority opinion's interpretation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 effectively repeals Articles 226-A and 336 with respect to offended parties who are under twelve (12) years old. Moreover, its cavalier treatment of the concepts of "force or intimidation" and "coercion or influence" muddles the essential elements of what are otherwise separate and distinct offenses punished under Article 336 and Section 5(b). The evidence establishes that no money, profit or other consideration and no coercion or influence attended AAA's sexual abuse. The definition of a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse is provided by Section 5 of RA 7610, namely: as a child, who (a) for money, profit