Seeking a reversal of her conviction, appellant Fortuna, in her assignment of errors, would now have the Court conclude that - I. The court a quo erred in convicting the accused-appellant on an information wherein the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense; II. The court a quo erred in finding that accused-appellant violated Section 6, par. (m) of R.A. 8042 when it did not reimburse the alleged amounts received from private complainants; III. The court a quo erred standing its finding that the accused-appellant was guilty of illegal recruitment. [3] The appeal is bereft of merit. The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who, without being duly authorized according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment. [4] Verily, the testimony presented at the trial by the complaining witnesses adequately established the commission of the offense. Testimony of complainant Lina Ganot Q. Mrs. Witness, where were you in the month of June, 1998? A. At Macatbong, Cabanatuan City, sir. Q. Were you gainfully employed at that time? A. No, sir. Q. On that particular month, June, 1998, having been unemployed at that time, was there ever an occasion that you tried to look for a job? A. Yes, sir, I [tried] to look for a job. Q. Was there ever an occasion that you tried to be a seller of Tupperware products? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please tell us in connection with this intention of yours to sell Tupperware products, did you ever attend a seminar? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where? A. At Burgos Avenue, Cabanatuan City, sir. Q. Have you ever come across this particular name Dominga Corrales Fortuna? A. Yes, sir.