6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. (Emphasis supplied.) xxxx As appellant was found guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage, she was aptly meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000. With respect to the estafa case, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code reads: ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). -- Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be; xxxx Considering that the total amount paid by Palo is P73,500 or P51,500 in excess of the P22,000 limit, an additional sentence of five years should be imposed based on the above-quoted provision. Thus, appellant was correctly meted the maximum penalty of 13 years of reclusion temporal. As to the amount to be indemnified to Palo, contrary to the findings of the trial and appellate courts, Palo's testimony and the vouchers she presented establish that the total amount she paid is only P73,500[20] and not the P80,000 quoted as placement fee. Thus, she should only be indemnified the said amount, plus legal interest of 12% per annum from the time of filing of the information.[21] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 28, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01902 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The amount to be indemnified to private complainant Josephine R. Palo is reduced to Seventy-Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P73,500) with legal interest of 12% per annum from the time of filing of the information until fully paid. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50218 6/8