5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as tourists, she told them that if they were really interested, she would introduce them to Pascua and she gave them Pascua's address at the back of UST. Before he left, Sotero dropped by her place to ask for her son`s address in Malaysia. Then he came back, he went to her place to ask for financial help as it was enrollment time and he had no money. Taking pity on him, she gave him several amounts: P3,000.00; P500.00; P1,100.00 and P800.00, respectively (see certification dated June 2, 1994 marked Exhibit `1'). Sotero's wife Ligaya also asked for a loan in the amount of P17,000.00 (see letter dated May 24, 1994 marked Exh. `6' bearing the signature of Ligaya Sotero). "She met Jaylord Balauro sometime in November 1994. Sotero introduced Balauro to her as a relative of Aviguetero. Balauro also wanted to work abroad so she told them that Sotero already knew Pascua and Banigued. Balauro used to frequent her place before he left abroad as he had nowhere else to go in the city. She clarified that although Exh. `2' shows that she promised to pay Juanito Balauro the amount of P18,300.00 the money came from Banigued, who sent a certain Mr. Sacramento to pay Balauro. "Regarding Shirley Velasco, she recalls that Velasco came to her residence bringing a letter from her aunt Zenaida Santiago. She too was asking for assistance to work abroad. She gave Velasco the address of Pascua. She denies seeing Velasco off at the airport. She also denies receiving any amount from her. During the preliminary investigation at the DOJ she told Pascua to give back the money paid by Velasco so she would desist from her complaint. So Pascua gave the money to Soliven's sister, Lolita Graza, who, in turn gave it to Velasco."[10] In its Decision dated April 16, 1996, the trial court declared that "with respect to the accused Aurora Soliven, the court is morally convinced that the elements of the offense of illegal recruitment on a large scale has been sufficiently proved: she offered overseas employment to several persons for a fee, without the necessary license to recruit from the POEA." The trial court likewise found her "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa for pretending to be a licensed recruiter and offering overseas jobs to the complainants for a fee which representations were false and resorted to only for the purpose of getting money from said complainants." The trial court stated that "it is of no moment that she made partial reimbursement to the complainants because the offense was already consummated. The accused assertions of innocence appears inconsistent with her actuations in these cases." In due time, the accused-appellant filed her appeal and in her Appellant's Brief contends that the trial court committed the following errors: "I "The trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crimes charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52764 5/14