xxxx For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age.[8] To impose upon Quimvel an indeterminate sentence computed from the penalty of prision correccional under Article 336 of the RPC would defeat the purpose of R.A. 7610 to provide for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. First, the imposition of such penalty would erase the substantial distinction between acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 and acts of lasciviousness with consent of the offended party under Article 339,[9] which used to be punishable by arresto mayor, and now by prision correccional pursuant to Section 10, Article VI of R.A. 7610. Second, it would inordinately put on equal footing the acts of lasciviousness committed against a child and the same crime committed against an adult, because the imposable penalty for both would still be prision correccional, save for the aggravating circumstance of minority that may be considered against the perpetrator. Third, it would make acts of lasciviousness against a child an offense a probationable offense, pursuant to the Probation Law of 1976,[10] as amended by R.A. 10707.[11] Indeed, while the foregoing implications are favorable to the accused, they are contrary to the State policy and principles under R.A. 7610 and the Constitution on the special protection to children. Based on the the legal definitions of "child abuse," it is also my view that there is no need to allege that the lascivious conduct be committed "with a child exploited in other prostitution" or with habituality, before a person may be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. Section 3, Article I of R.A. 7610 states that "child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;