or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.[48] (Emphases supplied) A meticulous perusal of the records reveals that all the elements of both acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 have been sufficiently established in this case. AAA's minority, as she was only 14 years old at the time of the incident, had been sufficiently established with the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth,[49] showing that she was born on July 6, 1992. It was likewise established that petitioner, who was then a teacher and CAT Commandant in AAA's school, and therefore, a person who exercised moral ascendancy and influence upon her, committed lascivious or lewd conduct against her by kissing her lips and sucking her right breast. Petitioner insists that force and intimidation as an element of acts of lasciviousness was not established in this case.[50] In Quimvel v. People,[51] however, the Court clarified that "force and intimidation" is subsumed under "coercion and influence," and that "x x x lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will. x x x [T]he term 'influence' means the 'improper use of power or trust in any way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another's objective.' Meanwhile, 'coercion' is the 'improper use of x x x power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.'"[52] In this case, it has been established that petitioner, who was AAA's teacher and then the CAT Commandant in her school, was able to carry out his lewd acts by asking her twice if she was determined to become a CAT officer. Petitioner's inquiry strongly suggested that if AAA really wanted to become a CAT officer, she should accede to his demands and allow him to commit lascivious conduct upon her person. Therefore, petitioner exercised influence and coercion upon AAA in order to commit the crime against her, thereby satisfying the element of force and intimidation in this case. Besides, although petitioner was not armed nor did he threaten AAA, his moral ascendancy over her is a sufficient substitute for the use of force or intimidation,[53] as pointed out by the CA. In view of the foregoing, petitioner's conviction is upheld not for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, but for "lascivious conduct'' under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, considering that she was 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.[54] To note, petitioner separately argued that the RTC that convicted him is a regular court, not a family court, and therefore, had no jurisdiction over the case.[55] Although it is true that Branch 20 of the RTC of Mambusao, Capiz is a regular court,