of RA 7610[44]), then the solution is through remedial legislation and not through judicial interpretation. It is well-settled that the determination of penalties is a policy matter that belongs to the legislative branch of government.[45] Thus, however compelling the dictates of reason might be, our constitutional order proscribes the Judiciary from adjusting the gradations of the penalties which are fixed by Congress through its legislative function. As Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta had instructively observed in his opinion in Caoli: 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, 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 [sic] the minimum term in the case of the older victims shall be taken from prision 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 address the noted incongruent penalties for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child.[46] (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court therefore holds that in instances where an accused is charged and eventually convicted of having sexual intercourse with a minor, the provisions on rape under RA 8353 amending the RPC should prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Further, to reiterate, the "focus of evidence" approach used in the Tubillo, et al. rulings had already been abandoned. In this case, it has been established that Ejercito had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, threat, or intimidation. Hence, he should be convicted of rape under paragraph 1 (a), Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353. To note, although AAA was only fifteen (15) years old and hence, a minor at that time, it was neither alleged nor proven that Ejercito was her "parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim" so as to qualify the crime