6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Appellant on the other hand denied the charges against her. She admitted that she was the owner and general manager of Naples which was a travel agency that offered visa assistance, ticketing, documentation, airport transfer and courier services, but denied having engaged in recruitment. She claimed that she cannot remember meeting Palo in her office and asserted that she met her for the first time only at the fiscal's office when Palo was already claiming for a refund. She testified that Roberto, to whom Palo claims to have given her payment, was neither her employee nor her agent but was only her driver's brother. Based on her records, Roberto endorsed to her office P30,000 from Palo for tourist visa assistance. Appellant also admitted that she and Roberto offered to settle the P30,000 but not the amount claimed by Palo per vouchers issued to her. On May 2, 2005, the trial court rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of both charges. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered NIDA ADESER is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment constituting Economic Sabotage in Criminal Case No. 03-2700 and Estafa in Criminal Case No. 03-2701. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the following penalties: 1. In Criminal Case No. 3-2700 - LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), and 2. In Criminal Case No. 03-2701 - Indeterminate imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 13 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Josephine R. Palo the sum of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) with legal interest from the time of the filing of the information. Cost against the accused. SO ORDERED.[10] Appellant appealed her conviction but the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated June 28, 2007. The appellate court did not give credence to appellant's denials and found that the prosecution evidence fully supports the finding that appellant and her co-accused engaged in recruitment and placement as defined under the Labor Code despite having no authority to do so. It likewise held that the same evidence proving the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment also established that appellant and her co-accused acted in unity in defrauding Palo and in misrepresenting to her that upon payment of the placement fee, they could obtain employment abroad for her. The appellant's act of deception and the resultant damage suffered by Palo render appellant guilty of estafa. In this appeal, appellant raises the following lone assignment of error: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50218 3/8