The Court disagrees. "Lascivious conduct" is defined in Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, as follows: [T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. In Amployo v. People,[42] the Court expounded on the definition of the word "lewd," to wit: The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover.[43] After a careful evaluation, the Court finds that the mere fact of "squeezing" the private part of a child - a young girl 12 years of age - could not have signified any other intention but one having lewd or indecent design. It must not be forgotten that several years prior, accused-appellant had raped AAA in the same house, for which act he was appropriately convicted. Indeed, the law indicates that the mere touching - more so, "squeezing," in this case, which strongly suggests that the act was intentional - of AAA's genitalia clearly constitutes lascivious conduct. It could not have been done merely to annoy or vex her, as opined by the courts a quo. That AAA was fully clothed at that time, which led the courts a quo to believe that accused-appellant could not have intended to lie with her, is inconsequential. "'Lewd' is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous. It signifies that form