Decision - 31 - G.R. No. 227363 deterrence and special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. It is not amiss to stress that the failure to designate the offense by statute, or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged, for what controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense, but the actual facts recited in the information. 80 Nevertheless, the designation in the information of the specific statute violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. 81 Justice Caguioa asks us to abandon our rulings in Dimakuta, Quimvel and Caoili, and to consider anew the viewpoint in his Separate Dissenting Opinion in Quimvel that the provisions of R.A. No. 7610 should be understood in its proper context, i.e., that it only applies in the specific and limited instances where the victim is a child "subjected to prostitution or other sexual abuse." He asserts that if the intention of R.A. No. 7610 is to penalize all sexual abuses against children under its provisions to the exclusion of the RPC, it would have expressly stated so and would have done away with the qualification that the child be "exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse." He points out that Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is a provision of specific and limited application, and must be applied as worded - a separate and distinct offense from the "common" or ordinary acts of lasCiviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. In support of his argument that the main thrust ofR.A. No. 7610 is the protection of street children from exploitation, Justice Caguioa cites parts of the sponsorship speech of Senators Santanina T. Rasul, Juan Ponce Enrile and Jose D. Lina, Jr. We find no compelling reason to abandon our ruling in Dimakuta, Quimvel and Caoili. In his Separate Concurring Opinion in Quimvel, the ponente aptly explained that if and when there is an absurdity in the interpretation of the provisions of the law, the proper recourse is to refer to the objectives or the declaration of state policy and principles under .Section 2 of R.A. No. 7610, as well as Section 3(2), Article XV of the 1987 Constitution: No. [R.A. 7610] Sec. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, 80 People v. Ursua, G.R. No. 218575, October 4, 2017, 842 SCRA 165, 178; Malta v. People, s(}lura note 44, at 135-136. s1 Id. ,