3. That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[4] The majority opinion states that for an accused to be held criminally liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, the requisites under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites under Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Moreover, based on the elements of Article 336 of the RPC and Section 5(b) of RA 7610 enumerated above, it is evident that both provisions share some similar elements. The main difference lies in the second element of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Thus, to he convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 - rather than acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC - it is essential to prove that the child against whom the act was committed is a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Thus, the difference is clear: under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the act of lasciviousness with a child who is neither exploited in prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual abuse" while under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 the act is performed with a child who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse." In this case, the majority opinion states that the second element of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 was met because the lascivious conduct was done under the "coercion or influence" of an adult. It assumes that if coercion or influence was used to perform a lascivious act with a child, such child is subjected to "other sexual abuse." The majority opinion goes further to state that "force or intimidation" (the terms used in the Information against Quimvel) is subsumed under "coercion or influence," which again, it deems as "other sexual abuse." The main issue is whether or not the second element of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 was correctly alleged in the Information and whether it was sufficiently proven by the prosecution during the trial. I submit that the second element - that the child is "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse" was neither correctly alleged nor proven beyond reasonable doubt. First, I would like to distinguish the first and second elements of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. The first element - that the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct - refers to the very act complained of against the accused. The second element - that the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse - refers to the circumstance of the child against whom the act was committed. This second element does not necessarily have any relation to the act of the accused as this relates to the child alone. The first and second elements refer to two entirely different and separate matters. One refers to the act committed by the accused while the other refers to the circumstance of the