informed of the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. He must look to the facts alleged.xvi[16] In the instant case, the information filed against accused-appellant sufficiently shows that it is for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code and penalized in Art. 39 of the same Code although it is designated as for illegal recruitment only. Under the Code, the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are as follows: (1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.xvii[17] All these elements are to be found in the information. It alleges that accused-appellant, knowing fully well that she was not a duly licensed job recruiter, falsely represented that she could secure employment as domestic helpers abroad for the four complainants. As such, the purpose of the requirement under Sec. 8, Rule 110xviii[18] to inform and apprise the accused of the true crime of which she was charged,xix[19] has been complied with. The main purpose of the requirement that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language is to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged so that he could suitably prepare for his defense. It is also required so that the trial court could pronounce the proper judgment.xx[20] This gives substance to the constitutional guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.xxi[21] In the instant case, the Court agrees with the Solicitor General that accused-appellant was fully accorded the right to be informed of the charges against her. The fact that she put up the defense of having accepted the money only in her capacity as an officer of the recruitment agency shows that she fully understood the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Furthermore, it is incorrect for accused-appellant to maintain that the information filed against her contained conflicting and irreconcilable charges of illegal recruitment, estafa under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code and estafa under the same article but under par. 2 (a) thereof. While on its face the allegations in the information may constitute estafa, this Court agrees with the Solicitor General that it merely describes how accused-appellant was able to consummate the act of illegal recruitment - through false and fraudulent representation by pretending that she was a duly-licensed recruiter who could secure employment for complainants in Kuwait. These allegations in the information therefore do not render the information defective or multiplicitous.