6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly damages, or deterred judges from indulging in speculation, conjecture or guesswork. Yet, in this case, despite the complainants uniformly testifying that they had parted with their money without asking for receipts,[19] there seemed to be no dispute about each of them having actually paid to the accused-appellant that amount for their processing and passport fees and other expenses including the amount necessary to open their bank accounts. To still deny them their right to recover actual damages only because they had no receipts to show for their payments would be a travesty of justice. For, if we are now affirming her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale for collecting the sums of money from them, it would really be beyond understanding to reverse the assessment of actual damages by the trial judge just to serve the general policy of limiting proof of actual damages to receipts. One of the constant lessons from our experience as judges is that the non-issuance of receipts by the illegal recruiters was also essential to the scheme to defraud the victims. By all means, then, should the lack of receipts not hinder the courts from vindicating the victims of the fraud. Moreover, the negation of the right to recover on that rigid basis would mock the Rules of Court, which has enshrined testimonial evidence as one of the means sanctioned by it of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. Confining the proof of actual damages to documentary evidence would definitely trench on the institutional wisdom of the Court in erecting the triumvirate of evidence admissible in court. Notwithstanding their failure to get receipts from the accused-appellant, therefore, the RTC rightly fixed actual damages of P6,500.00 for each of the complainants, and the CA justifiably agreed with the RTC. Finally, imposing on the actual damages legal interest reckoned from the filing of the information was in accord with jurisprudence.[20] The rate of legal interest is 12% per annum from the filing of the information until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment of the actual damages. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on April 14, 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03529 subject to the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Delia Camannong is ordered to pay to each of the complainants, namely: Joel G. Salva, Marvin Albano, Reynaldo Salva, Jr., Rolly Calixtro, and Roger Cabael, the amount of P6,500.00 as actual damages, plus interest thereon of 12% per annum from the filing of the information until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid, and the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C. J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga (retired), with Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino concurring. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63739 7/10