FORM, PARTICULARLY AS TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING MOTU PROPRIO THE INFORMATION IN VIEW OF ITS INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY, CONFLICTING AND IRRECONCILABLE CHARGES OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 1(b) AND ESTAFA UNDER THE SAME ARTICLE BUT UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(a) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND IN CONDUCTING TRIAL THEREUNDER; IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND IN CONVICTING HER OF THE THE CHARGE IN THE INFORMATION; V THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, IF ANY, IS ONLY CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE; VI THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS THE SUM OF P8,000.00 EACH. Appellant clearly focuses on the validity and sufficiency of both the information filed against her and the decision rendered in due course by the trial court. She asserts that there was a violation of the constitutional mandate that a judgment of conviction must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. With regard to the information filed against her, appellant contends that it did not substantially conform to the prescribed form, particularly as to the designation of the offense and cause of accusation. It should be observed in the aforequoted information that its caption indicates that she is being charged with illegal recruitment only while the allegations therein substantiate the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa committed by fraud or deceit. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the information is sufficient where it clearly states the designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense.xiv[14] However, there is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute that was violated by the accused. No law requires that in order that an accused may be convicted, the specific provision penalizing the act charged should be mentioned in the information.xv[15] What identifies the charge is the actual recital of the facts and not that designated by the fiscal in the preamble thereof. It is not even necessary for the protection of the substantial rights of the accused, nor the effective preparation of his defense, that the accused be