being punished together with its attending circumstances - and not the gravity of the penalty ancillary to that punished act - which is the key consideration in resolving the conflicting applications of two penal laws. Notably, in the more recent case of People v. Caoili (Caoili),[41] the Court encountered a situation wherein the punishable act committed by therein accused, i.e., lascivious conduct, may be prosecuted either under "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610" or "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610." In resolving the matter, the Court did not consider the "focus" of the evidence for the prosecution nor the gravity of the penalty imposed. Rather, it is evident that the determining factor in designating or charging the proper offense, and consequently, the imposable penalty therefor, is the nature of the act committed, i.e., lascivious conduct, taken together with the attending circumstance of the age of the victim: Accordingly, for the guidance of public prosecutors and the courts, the Court takes this opportunity to prescribe the following guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in determining the imposable penalty: 1. The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating or charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty. 2. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of the crime should be "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610." Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. 3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.[42] Thus, being the more recent case, it may be concluded that Caoili implicitly abandoned the "focus of evidence" approach used in the Tubillo, et al. rulings. Likewise, it is apt to clarify that if there appears to be any rational dissonance or perceived unfairness in the imposable penalties between two applicable laws (say for instance, that a person who commits rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC,[43] as amended by RA 8353 is punished less than a person who commits lascivious conduct against a minor under Section 5 (b)