under "coercion or influence" and being under the "coercion or influence" of an adult is enough to deem a child already subjected to "other sexual abuse," how will Section 5(b) of RA 7610 be any different from Article 336 of the RPC? It should be noted that "force or intimidation" is also one of the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. To equate the two terms would result in disregarding the different crimes and penalties under the two different provisions of law. To appreciate the difference between these provisions, "force or intimidation" under Article 336 of the RPC must be understood in relation to the act complained of, that is, whether the lascivious conduct was done with force or intimidation against the victim. In contrast, "coercion or influence" as used in RA 7610 should be read with reference to the circumstance of the child, that is, whether "coercion or influence" was used to exploit the child in prostitution or to subject the child to "other sexual abuse." It is clear that the lawmakers intended to afford more protection to the sexually misused and abused children rather than those children who were not. There simply would have been no need to include the element that the child is exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse" if this were not the case. If the intention of the law was merely to protect children against sexual abuse, without regard to their circumstance of being exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, the provision could have simply omitted the reference to prostitution or other sexual abuse so that all children would be covered under this provision. However, the lawmakers expressly included prostitution or being subjected to "other sexual abuse" as one of the elements of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 because of the greater need to protect such children. And because of this greater need, a higher penalty is imposed as well. This is not to say, however, that the accused himself must have exploited the child in prostitution or subjected the child to "other sexual abuse." The exploitation of the child in prostitution or subjection of the child to "other sexual abuse" may be committed by persons other than the accused. I agree with the majority opinion that the offense under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 can be committed even though the abuse complained of occurred only once. The sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed by the accused may have been a singular instance and not a habitual occurrence. Indeed, the first element merely requires an act Thus, one single act of the accused is enough. However, that singular act must have been done against a child who was already exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse." Again, the act of the accused and the circumstance of the child are two separate and distinct elements. I also agree with the majority opinion that there need not be a third person subjecting the child to "other sexual abuse." It could very well happen that the person who exploited the child in prostitution is the same person accused of