G.R. No. 179934 8 of 14 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/179934.htm required by law to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under [18] Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Recruitment and placement is any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. [19] The prosecution sufficiently established Abordos guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of simple illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. V-0655. Without the necessary license, Abordo unlawfully recruited Rayray for deployment abroad. In exchange for this promised overseas job, Rayray paid Abordo P14,000. Conniving with Cabanlong, Abordo also illegally recruited Jaime, Mendoza, and Cario who paid the accused P45,000, P39,000 and P15,000, respectively, as placement fees. Despite their payments of the placement fees, all the complainants were unable to depart the country for work abroad. The Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the accused are guilty of simple illegal recruitment only, modifying the trial courts ruling that the accused are guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since the accused were prosecuted under several informations for different complainants, the penalty imposed should be for each information [20] charged. To convict the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale, there must be one [21] information that must include all the complainants. Otherwise, the accused should be [22] convicted only for simple illegal recruitment. Accordingly, the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case Nos. V-0655, V-0768, V-0770, and V-0771 (for [23] simple illegal recruitment) are likewise correct. The Court also affirms the conviction of Abordo for estafa committed against Rayray and the conviction of Abordo and Cabanlong for estafa committed against Jaime, Mendoza, and Cario. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude [24] The prosecution punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the felony of estafa. 1/28/2016 10:08 AM