No. 7610 were present. It was ruled therein that the accused can be charged with either rape or child abuse and be convicted therefor. The Court observed, however, that the prosecution's evidence proved that accused had carnal knowledge with the victim through force and intimidation by threatening her with a samurai sword. Thus, rape was established. Again, the evidence in that case did not refer to the broader scope of "influence or coercion" under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. In the present case, the RTC convicted Tubillo for the crime of rape because the prosecution proved that there was carnal knowledge against by means of force or intimidation, particularly, with a bladed weapon. On the other hand, the CA convicted Tubillo with violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 because the charge of rape under the information was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. After a judicious study of the records, the Court rules that Tubillo should be convicted of rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC. A reading of the information would show that the case at bench involves both the elements of Article 266-A (1) of the RPC and Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. As elucidated in People v. Abay and People v. Pangilinan, in such instance, the court must examine the evidence of the prosecution, whether it focused on the specific force or intimidation employed by the offender or on the broader concept of coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the victim. Here, the evidence of the prosecution unequivocally focused on the force or intimidation employed by Tubillo against HGE under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC. The prosecution presented the testimony HGE who narrated that Tubillo unlawfully entered the house where she was sleeping by breaking the padlock. Once inside, he forced himself upon her, pointed a knife at her neck, and inserted his penis in her vagina. She could not resist the sexual. attack against her because. Tubillo poked a bladed weapon at her neck. Verily, Tubillo employed brash force or intimidation to carry out his dastardly deeds. In fine, Tubillo should be found guilty of rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the RPC with a prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.[34] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) As may be gleaned therefrom, the Court examined the evidence of the prosecution to determine "whether it focused on the specific force or intimidation employed by the offender or on the broader concept of coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the victim."[35] The premise in Tubillo that "coercion or influence" is the broader concept in contrast to "force or intimidation" appears to have been rooted from that statement in Quimvel wherein it was mentioned that "[t]he term