second element of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC is sourced from Art. 335 of the same code,[61] it is then Justice Leonen's theory that Acts of Lasciviousness ceased to be a crime under the RPC following Art. 335's express repeal. We respectfully disagree. Sec. 4 of RA 8353 did not expressly repeal Article 336 of the RPC for if it were the intent of Congress, it would have expressly done so. Rather, the phrase in Sec. 4 states: "deemed amended, modified, or repealed accordingly" qualifies "Article 335 of Act No. 3815, as amended, and all laws, acts, presidential decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of [RA 8353]." As can be read, repeal is not the only fate that may befall statutory provisions that are inconsistent with RA 8353. It may be that mere amendment or modification would suffice to reconcile the inconsistencies resulting from the latter law's enactment. In this case, Art. 335 of the RPC,[62] which previously penalized rape through carnal knowledge, has been replaced by Art. 266-A.[63] Thus, the reference by Art. 336 of the RPC to any of the circumstances mentioned on the erstwhile preceding article on how the crime is perpetrated should now refer to the circumstances covered by Art. 266-A as introduced by the Anti-Rape Law. We are inclined to abide by the Court's long-standing policy to disfavor repeals by implication for laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject. The failure to particularly mention the law allegedly repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal the said law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.[64] Here, RA 8353 made no specific mention of any RPC provision other than Art. 335 as having been amended, modified, or repealed. And as demonstrated, the Anti-Rape Law, on the one hand, and Art. 336 of the RPC, on the other, are not irreconcilable. The only construction that can be given to the phrase "preceding article" is that Art. 336 of the RPC now refers to Art. 266-A in the place of the repealed Art. 335. It is, therefore, erroneous to claim that Acts of Lasciviousness can no longer be prosecuted under the RPC. It is likewise incorrect to claim that Art. 336 had been rendered inoperative by the Anti-Rape Law and argue in the same breath the applicability of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. The latter provision reads: Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - x x x xxxx