of such crime as defined by Article 336 of the RPC. Moreover, while the first clause of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 is silent with respect to the age of the victim, Section 3, Article I thereof defines "children" as those below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability. Notably, two provisos succeeding the first clause of Section 5(b) explicitly state a qualification that when the victims of lascivious conduct is under 12 years of age, the perpetrator shall be (1) prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, and (2) the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. It is a basic rule in statutory 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.[6] Accordingly, this case falls under the qualifying provisos of Section 5(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, and the victim is under 12 years of age: That on or about 8 o'clock in the evening of July 18, 2007 at Palpas, Ligao City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, through force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, insert his hand inside the panty of AAA, a minor of 7 years old and mash her vagina, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[7] Quimvel should therefore prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, and the indeterminate sentence should be computed based on the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, pursuant to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. To be sure, Quimvel cannot be merely penalized with prision correccional for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC when the victim is a child because it is contrary to the letter and intent of R.A. 7610 to provide for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. This legislative intent is expressed under Section 10, Article VI of R.A. 7610 which, among others, increased by one degree the penalty for certain crimes when the victim is a child under 12 years of age, to wit: Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. -