(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and x x x x (Emphases supplied) For the brief reasons that follow, I deem it enough that a singular act of sexual abuse be committed against a minor in order to qualify under the law's protection: First, the prevailing Congressional intent behind RA 7610 was to establish "[a] national program for protection of children" which needs "not only the institutional protective mechanisms, but also a mechanism for strong deterrence against commission of abuse and exploitation."[2] In his sponsorship speech for Senate Bill No. 1209, from which RA 7610 originated, Senator Jose D. Lina, Jr. (Senator Lina, Jr.) mentioned that the law was "intended to provide stiffer penalties for abuse of children and to facilitate prosecution of perpetrators of abuse. It is intended to complement the provisions of the Revised Penal Code [at that time] where the crimes committed are those which lead children to prostitution and sexual abuse, trafficking in children and use of the young in pornographic activities."[3] Senator Lina, Jr. also presented cases of reported abuse, none of which imply that the child victims have been previously exploited. Instead, they are straight-up cases of sexual abuse of minors.[4] Hence, if RA 7610 was directly meant to reinforce the legal framework against the sexual abuse of minors, it would not make any sense to first require a preliminary act of sexual abuse against a child before a sex offender could be punished under the same. Indeed, a person's chastity - much more a child's - is undoubtedly sacred and once ravaged, is forever lost and leaves a scar on his or her well-being. As such, our lawmakers, in crafting a special legislation precisely to deter child abuse, would not have thought of such absurdity. Second, it is difficult - if not, insensible - to operationalize the application of RA 7610 under the theory that the commission of a prior act of sexual abuse is required before a lascivious conduct may be penalized under Section 5 (b) of the same law. For one, no operational parameter was provided by law to determine the existence of a prior sexual abuse so as to satisfy the preliminary element of the aforementioned theory. It is unclear whether a prior sexual abuse on the same child victim should be pronounced in an official court declaration, or whether a mere finding on that matter in the same case would suffice. The Congressional