be shown if the offended party is a child under twelve (12) years old. This proposition is correct IF the prosecution is for Articles 266-A or 336, as the age of the offended party is a circumstance that, on its own, already satisfies the conditions of Articles 266-A and 336. However, I maintain that in a prosecution under Section 5(b), coercion or influence (or otherwise, that the child indulged in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for money, profit or other consideration) is a textually-provided circumstance that must be separately shown apart from the age of the child victim. Issues of operationalization. A challenge to this interpretation has been articulated that the requirement of showing what Justice Carpio calls as the "circumstances of the child" is difficult to operationalize.[34] I disagree. The circumstances of the child can be proved in any manner allowed by the Rules of Court, as by testimony of the child himself or herself, or any other person who has personal knowledge of the child's circumstances. Ultimately, if difficulty is encountered in operationalizing a provision in terms of evidence required it is within the province of the Court to lay down guidelines in appreciating a fact as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, as it had done in People v. Pruna[35] as to the question of proving a victim's age. In view of the foregoing discussion, Section 5(b), to my mind, is, as earlier intimated, correctly understood to be a subset of the universe of acts of lasciviousness covered by Article 336, thereby requiring allegation and proof of the specific circumstances required for it to operate which, again, are simply composed of its essential elements. The Court's role is to punish the guilty with the penalty provided by law for the offense proved by the People's evidence. While I share the sentiment that the highest degree of protection must be afforded to children, I am mindful of the fact that, as far as this protection is equated to the proper penalty upon persons that offend against children, the extent of this protection only goes as far as the law can be reasonably and equitably interpreted to allow. It is in this light that I cannot join the majority in imposing the higher penalty of reclusion temporal as provided in RA 7610, despite the fact that I stand with the rest of the members of the Court in absolute condemnation of the abuse committed against the child victim. Recapitulation. A dispassionate evaluation of the evidence shows that what the prosecution only