Section 8.

1. The designation of the offense given by the statute. If
   there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
   made to the section of the statute punishing it.
2. The statement of the acts or omissions constituting the
   offense, in ordinary, concise and particular words.
3. The specific qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
   stated in ordinary and concise language.

The qualifying and aggravating circumstances cannot be
appreciated even if proved unless alleged in the
information (People v. Perreras, 362 SCRA 202).

In case of allegation of aggravating circumstance of HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY, it should not be generally averred. The
information must specify:
a. the commission of the crimes;
b. the last conviction or release;
c. the other previous conviction or release of the accused.

In rape cases, the concurrence of the minority of the victim
and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying
circumstance which should be both alleged (People v. Cantos,
305 SCRA 786) and proved (People v. Manggasin) with certainty
in order to warrant the imposition of the [maximum] penalty.

1. In case of a conflict between the designation of the crime
   and the recital of facts constituting the offense, the
   latter prevails over the former.
2. The real question is not, did he commit a crime given in
   the law some technical and specific name, but did he
   perform the acts alleged in the body of the information. If
   he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter
   of procedure or of substantive right, how the law
   denominates the crime.

It is not the designation of the offense in the complaint or
information that is controlling (People v. Samillano, 56 SCRA
573); the facts alleged therein and not its title determine
the nature of the crime (People v. Magdowa, 73 Phil 512).

The accused may be convicted of a crime more serious than that
named in the title or preliminary part if such crime is covered
by the facts alleged in the body of the information and its
commission is established by evidence (Buhat v. Court of Appeals,
265 SCRA 701).

An accused could not be convicted under one act when he is
charged with a violation of another if the change from one
statue to the other involves:
a. a change in the theory of the trial;
b. requires of the defendant a different defense; or
c. surprise the accused in any way. (U.S. v. Panlilio, 28 Phil 603).

Aver the acts and omissions constituting the offense. Specify
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

This is a procedural requirement to safeguard the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. An information is legally viable as long as it
distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and
the acts or omissions thereof.

In case of conflict between the designation of the crime and
the recital of facts constituting the offense, the latter
prevails over the former.

It is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford
him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. Further,
the right becomes more compelling for an accused to be
confronted with the facts constituting the essential elements
of the offense charged against him, if he is not to become an
easy pawn of oppression and harassment, or of negligent/misguided
official action. The sufficiency of an Information is determined
solely by the facts alleged therein. [People v. Purisima (1978)]