On January 7, 1995, the recruits reported Castillons illegal activities to the police authorities (TSN, April 17, 1995, pp. 4-6). Version of the Defense In her Brief,v[5] appellant presents the following version of the facts: [The a]ccused vehemently denied the accusation imputed [to] her. [She] testified that sometime in 1993 she left the Philippines for Singapore and was able to work there as a bookkeeper. After working in Singapore for a year, she went back to her former job as a bookkeeper in Tacurong. Sometime in November 1994, while [she] was awaiting for her departure [for] Singapore, [she] met private complainant, Emily Perturbos, whom she first met in Suralla, Cotabato in 1993. Emily Perturbos requested the accused-appellant for assistance because the former likewise want[ed] to go to Singapore with her. Private complainant even invited the accused-appellant to her house on November 12, 1994, and there and then, Emily Perturbos informed her mother that whether the latter like[d] it or not, she [would] find ways in order to go to Singapore. Although at first hesitant, [the] accused-appellant expressed her intention to assist Emily Perturbos in going to Singapore but she reminded the private complainant that they [would] be entering Singapore as tourists. (TSN, July 21, 1995, pp. 4-16). Elated with the prospect of going abroad, Emily Perturbos called by long distance her sister, Nelia Perturbos and informed [her] that she ha[d] a friend in the person of herein accused-appellant who could assist them in finding work abroad. Emily Perturbos then introduced three (3) other persons to herein accused-appellant, including her sister, Nelia Perturbos, and requested the accused to likewise extend assistance to these three (3) persons. (Ibid, p.15) Ruling of the Trial Court In convicting appellant, the trial court found that the victims paid the appellant P4,000 each, because of her fraudulent representation that she could provide them employment abroad. It ruled: There is no doubt in the records from the evidence of the prosecution [that the] accused solicited, canvassed and demanded payment from all complainants, the partial amount of P4,000.00, in consideration of a promised employment abroad, through the efforts and influence of [the] accused herself. The denial of [the] accused, explaining she did not recruit complainants but she merely help[ed] them for humanitarian reason, cannot be accepted. The records will show, she herself took the initiative of going with complainant [to] Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur, in order to receive from Emily and Nelia Perturbos the above-advance payments[;] while in the case of Acol and Bula-ag, she personally went to the[ir] parents x x x to make representations and assurances [that] she [would] be responsible [for] providing employment [for] them abroad.vi[6] The Issue