It has been submitted that the interpretation of the final proviso of Section 5(b) imposing reclusion temporal in its medium period if the child is under twelve (12) years old should be made to depend only on the proviso preceding it.[29] The practical effect of this submission is that whenever the victim of lascivious conduct is any child under twelve (12) years of age, the prosecution shall be under Article 336 of the RPC and the penalty automatically becomes reclusion temporal. I disagree. True, the office of the proviso is to quality or modify only the phrase immediately preceding it or restrains or limits the generality of the clause that immediately follows. As applied to Section 5(b), the understanding of the last proviso should not lose sight of the fact that what it qualifies is another proviso, which also operates only within the meaning of the phrase preceding the latter: (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period[.] Therefore, I submit that the proper understanding of Section 5(b) with both provisos in operation would be: in prosecutions for lascivious conduct under Article 336 when the victim is (1) a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, AND (2) under twelve (12) years old, the penalty would be reclusion temporal in its medium period. In this context, it cannot be said that the penalty for all prosecutions for lascivious conduct under Article 336 is reclusion temporal in its medium period. As it should be, prosecution for acts of lasciviousness that do not involve a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse even if she were under twelve (12) years old, the penalty should - as it should be meted on Quimvel - be the penalty provided in the RPC, which is prision correccional. Section 5(b), as worded and as intended, is a small subset of the universe of lascivious conduct covered by Article 336, thereby requiring allegation and proof of the specific circumstances required for it to operate - which, put simply, are composed of its essential elements. RA 7610 did not repeal Article 336. In this light, I concur with the majority that Article 336 remains an operative provision, and the crime of acts of lasciviousness under the RPC remains a distinct