1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex; 3. That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; [or] c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented. (Italics supplied)[32] On the other hand, Section 5(b)'s essential elements are as follows: 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[33] The muddling is made even more inopportune by the fact that the people's evidence shows neither force or intimidation, nor coercion or influence employed by Quimvel upon AAA. Quimvel took advantage of the fact that AAA was asleep, committed lascivious conduct upon her, and forthwith ceased when she awoke and removed his hand from within her shorts - her being asleep a circumstance properly belonging to being unconscious. However, even as the Information alleged the use of force or intimidation, the evidence established only that AAA was unconscious or asleep; meaning that Quimvel could not be convicted of Section 5(b) but could be convicted only of Article 336. It has been argued that neither force or intimidation nor coercion or influence need