Decision - 64 - G.R. No. 227363 circumstance or committed by persons under Section 3 1, 136 Article XII of R.A. No. 7610, in which case, the imposable penalty is reclusionperpetua. 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 tenn in the case of the younger victims shall be taken from reclusion temporal minimum, 137 whereas as the minimum term in the case of the older victims shall be taken from prisi6n mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum. 138 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, 139 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. 140 Thus, a corrective legislation is the proper remedy to address the noted incongruent penalties for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child. We further note that R.A. No. 8353 did not expressly repeal Article 336 of the RPC, as amended. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8353 only states that Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, and all laws, rules and regulations inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions thereof are deemed amended, modified or repealed, accordingly. There is nothing inconsistent between the provisions of Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, and R.A. No. 8353, except in sexual assault as a form of rape. To recall, R.A. No. 8353 only modified Article 336 of the RPC, as follows: (1) by carrying over to acts of lasciviousness the additional circumstances 141 applicable to rape, viz.: threat and fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; (2) by retaining the circumstance that the offended party is under 12 years old, and including dementia as another one, in order for acts of lasciviousness to be considered as statutory, wherein evidence of force or intimidation is immaterial because the offended party who is under 12 years old or demented, is presumed incapable of giving rational consent; and (3) by removing from the scope of acts of lasciviousness and placing under the crime of rape by sexual assault the specific lewd act of inserting the offender's penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Hence, Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, is still 136 137 138 l 39 140 141 Section 31. Commun Penal Provisions. xx xx (c) The penalty provided 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 operate or its license has expired or has been revoked. Ranging from 12 years and I day to 14 years and 8 months. Ranging from 8 years I day to 14 years and 8 months. Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456 (1912). People v. De Guzman, 90 Phil. 132 ( 1951 ). Aside from the use of force or intimidation, or when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise UnCOnSCIOUS. ~