In relation to this, it is important to emphasize that although Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 was not expressly mentioned in the Information, "this omission is not fatal so as to violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Indeed, what controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense, but the actual facts recited in the information constituting the crime charged.[32] As the Court categorically declared in Quimvel v. People[33]: Jurisprudence has already set the standard on how the requirement is to be satisfied. Case law dictates that the allegations in the Information must be in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to know the proper judgment. The Information must allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. The facts and circumstances necessary to be included therein are determined by reference to the definition and elements of the specific crimes. The main purpose of requiring the elements of a crime to be set out in the Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and the right of an accused to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. As further explained in Andaya v. People: No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights. (Emphasis added, citations omitted.) Specifically, "[i]n Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, this Court found the information sufficient to convict the accused of sexual abuse despite the absence of the specific sections of RA 7610 alleged to have been violated by the accused."[34] In the case at bench, the Information alleged sufficiently all the elements constituting the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Eulalio forced AAA, who was 11 years old at the time, to engage in lascivious acts which is within the ambit of other sexual abuse in relation to Section 5(b). Thus, even if Section 5(b) was not expressly mentioned or specified in the Information, Eulalio could still be convicted of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 given the facts provided in the Information and those which were proven during the trial of the case.[35]