5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The fact that accused-appellant had a license does not negate the fact that accusedappellant employed deceit against private respondents. Here, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-appellant misrepresented to the private complainants that she could provide them with overseas employment when in fact there was none at the time she made such misrepresentation. Because of the assurances, private complainants parted with their money with the expectation of employment abroad which did not materialize; thus causing damage to private complainants to the extent of the sums of money they turned over to the accused-appellant. Further, as to Adoracion, she was made to believe that accused-appellant would purchase her a plane ticket for which she paid P51,000.00. However, she was not deployed because the ticket given to her by the accused-appellant was outdated and invalid, it being dated 2004.[78] Thus, the RTC correctly found the accused-appellant guilty of Estafa. Penalties As to the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the Court is aware that the penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 has been amended by Section 6 of RA 10022. Thus, for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage, the penalty under Section 7(b) of RA 8042 of "life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00" has been increased to "life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 nor more than P5,000,000.00 under Section 6 of RA 10022." In this case, the affidavits of the private complainants executed on various dates on July 2009, as well as their testimonies, indicate that the offenses were committed earlier than March 8, 2010, the date of effectivity of RA 10022. Since the penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 are more favorable to accused-appellant, the penalties stated in RA 8042 should still apply. Consequently, considering the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Section 6(m) of RA 8042, the Court finds no reason to modify the penalty imposed upon her in Criminal Case No. 143740, i.e., penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. As to the crime of Estafa for five counts, there is a need to modify the penalties imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, in view of the enactment of RA 10951 which increased the amounts that would correspond to the penalties provided in Article 315 of the RPC. Since the amendment is favorable to accused-appellant, it shall have retroactive effect. As explained in People v. Dejolde,[79] Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, now provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount involved is over P40,000.00 but does not exceed P1,200,000.00. Moreover, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be between one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional.[80] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[81] the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, i.e., between one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. In this case, considering that the amounts involved in Criminal Case Nos. 143742, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66373 12/17