xxxx Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious conduct, which is within the purview of sexual abuse. Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, based on her testimony which was corroborated by her Birth Certificate presented during trial. x x x[26] Accordingly, Ursua should be convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, and not just acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to the same provision of R.A. No. 7610. Concededly, 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.[27] It bears emphasis, however, that 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.[28] Thus, the Court finds it necessary to stress its ruling in Caoili:[29] (1) that the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, can only be committed against a victim who is less than 12 years old; and (2) that when the victim is aged 12 years old but under 18, or is above 18 years old under special circumstances, the proper designation of the offense is sexual abuse or lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610: Based on the language of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, however, the offense designated as Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 4 of R.A. No. 7610 should be used when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age at the time the offense was committed. This finds support in the first proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 which requires that "when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be. " Thus, pursuant to this proviso, it has been held that before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. Conversely, when the victim, at the time the offense was committed is aged twelve (12) years or over but under eighteen (18), or is eighteen (18) or older but unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the nomenclature of the offense should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, since the law no longer refers to Article 336 of the RPC, and the perpetrator is prosecuted solely under R.A. No. 7610. xxxx Accordingly, for the guidance of public prosecutors and the courts, the Court takes this opportunity to prescribe the following guidelines in designating or charging the proper offense in case lascivious conduct is committed under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in determining the imposable penalty: 1. The age of the victim is taken into consideration in designating the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty. 2. If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of the crime should be Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. 3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years or older but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.[30] Considering that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the commission of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, and there being no mitigating circumstance to offset the alternative aggravating circumstance of (paternal) relationship,[31] as alleged in the information and proved during the trial of Criminal Case No. 134834-H, Ursua is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and is ordered to pay P15,000.00 as fine, pursuant to Section 31 (a)[32] and (f)[33] of R.A. No. 7610, as well as to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, in line with current jurisprudence.[34] Finally, a legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all the monetary awards for damages