. Decision - 45 - G.R. No. 227363 Justice Perlas-Bernabe also noted that a general view on the application of R.A. No. 7610 would also lead to an unnerving incongruence between the law's policy objective and certain penalties imposed thereunder. She pointed out that under Article 335 of the RPC, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 8353, the crime of rape committed against a minor who is not under 12 and below 18, is punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, while under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the crime of sexual abuse against a child EPSOSA is punished only with a lower penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. She concluded that it would not make sense for the Congress to pass a supposedly stronger law against child abuse if the same carries a lower penalty for the same act of rape under the old RPC provision. Justice Perlas-Bemabe's observation on incongruent penalties was similarly noted by the ponente in his Separate Concurring Opinion in Quimvel, albeit with respect to the penalties for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child, but he added that the proper remedy therefor is a corrective legislation: Curiously, despite the clear intent of R.A. 7610 to provide for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, the penalty [reclusion temporal medium] when the victim is under 12 years old is lower compared to the penalty [reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua] when the victim is 12 years old and below 18. The same holds true if the crime of acts of lasciviousness is attended by an aggravating circumstance or committed by persons under Section 31, 106 Article XII of R.A. 7610, in which case, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. In contrast, when ·no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attended the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the penalty therefor when committed against a child under 12 years old is aptly higher than the penalty when the child is 12 years old and below 18. This is because, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term in the case of the younger victims shall be taken from reclusion temporal minimum, whereas as the minimum term in the case of the older victims shall be taken from prisi6n mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that what courts may correct to reflect the real and apparent intention of the legislature are only those which are clearly clerical errors or obvious mistakes, omissions, and misprints, but not those due to oversight, as shown by a review of extraneous circumstances, where the law is clear, and to correct it would be to change the meaning of the law. To my mind, a corrective legislation is the proper remedy to 106 Section 31. Common Penal Provisions. - xx xx (c) The penalty pro:vided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to opernte or its license has expfred or hos been revoked. [Emph"5is added] . ~