Decision - 17 - G.R. No. 227363 construction that the office of the proviso qualifies or modifies only the phrase immediately preceding it or restrains of limits the generality of the clause that it immediately follows. A proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately preceding part of the provisions, to which it is attached, and not to the statute itself or the other sections thereof. 37 Accordingly, this case falls under the qualifying provisos of Section S(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 because the allegations in the information make out a case for acts of lasciviousness, as defined under Article 336 of the RPC, aµd the victim is under 12 years of age x x x."38 In view of the foregoing rule in statutory construction, it was proposed39 in Quimvel that the penalty for acts ·of lasciviousness committed against a child should depend on his/her age: if the victim is under 12 years of age, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, and if the victim is 12 years old and below 18, or 18 or. older under special circumstances under Section 3(a)40 of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Applying by analogy the foregoing discussion in Quimvel to the act of sexual intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse, We rule that when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, only the first proviso of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 will apply, to wit: "when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape x x x." The penalty for statutory rape under Article 335 is reclusion perpetua, which is still the same as in the current rape law, i.e., paragraph I (d), Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, except in cases where the victim is below 7 years of age where the imposable penalty is death. 41 37 Chinese Flour Importers Association v. Price Stabilization Board, 89 Phil. 439 ( 1951 ); Arenas v. City qf San Carlos, 172 Phil. 306 (1978). 38 Quimvel v. People, supra note 35, at 268-269. (Emphasis added). 39 See Separate Concurring Opinion and Majority Opinion. 40 Section. 3. Definition of Terms. (a) "Children" refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect from themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. 41 Item II ( 1) of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase 'Without Eligibility for Parole' in Indivisible Penaties, "dated August 4, 2015 provides: (I) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalize~ with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; xx x {/ ,