7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Given all the foregoing premises, this Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA. Lastly, it was established that there were at least three (3) victims in this case, namely, Llave, Concrenio, and Sta. Maria, who all testified before the RTC in support of their respective complaints. In this regard, the Court is not swayed by appellant's assertion that he did not promise any kind of overseas employment to Sta. Maria. As found by the RTC and the CA, it was clearly established that appellant directly dealt with Sta. Maria relative to the latter's supposed employment abroad, and that appellant even charged him a placement fee to cover for the expenses of processing his documents. Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that appellant is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, which constitutes economic sabotage under Section 6 of RA 8042. The penalty imposed. Anent the penalty that must be imposed, we note that both the RTC and the CA imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. Section 7(b) of RA 8042 provides that "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" such as in the case of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. Notably, the same section states that "the maximum penalty shall be imposed if x x x committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority."[35] Significantly, RA 10022, which took effect on May 7, 2010,[36] amended the fine under Section 7(b) of RA 8042 in this wise, viz.: The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) nor more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined therein. Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if x x x committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.[37] Considering that the crime charged was committed on January 11, 2012, which is almost two (2) years after the amendment took effect on May 7, 2010, the penalty as amended by RA 10022 should be, perforce, applied. Moreover, Section 7 of the latter statute provides that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if committed by a nonlicensee or non-holder of authority. Considering the foregoing premises, the proper penalty to be imposed upon appellant is life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed February 10, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08232, which affirmed the March 16, 2016 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66798 9/12