regard to the existence of the second element of sexual abuse, i.e., whether or not the lascivious conduct was performed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. Case law further clarifies that 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.33 Corollory thereto, Section 2 (g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves the element of influence which manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as: chanRoblesvi rt ual Lawlib rary [T]he employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children x x x The 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." On the other hand, "coercion" is the "improper use of x x x power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it."34 With the foregoing parameters considered, the Court finds that Fianza's acts were attended by coercion or influence within the contemplation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610. It is undisputed that AAA was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents, hence, considered a child under the law. Section 3 (a), Article I of RA 7610 defines children in this wise: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawl ibra ry (a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition[.] Case law states that a child, such as AAA in this case, is presumed to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act. In Malto v. People,35 the Court explained: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary