proved beyond reasonable doubt is her lack of license to recruit. Her false pretenses or misrepresentations were executed prior to, or simultaneously with, her taking the amounts of fifteen thousand four hundred pesos (P15,400.00) from Bakian and fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) from Bayani. Both Bakian and Bayani relied upon these false pretenses and misrepresentations to their damage and prejudice. The fact that accused-appellant returned their moneyxx[20] will not negate the crime of estafa. As held in the case of People vs. Benitez,xxi[21] it is well settled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion even though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended party. [A] criminal offense is committed against the People, the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense. Accused-appellant also contends that the penalty imposed on her in the two cases of estafa is erroneous. She asserts that her proper penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods of six (6) months, one (1) day to four (4) years and two months. This contention is untenable. Estafa is defined and punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: 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 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos xxx. xxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to posses power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. xxx. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that, in imposing a prison sentence under the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that, which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. Considering the amounts defrauded from Bakian and Bayani, the trial court correctly prescribed the penalty of accused-appellant, the minimum of which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and