4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Hunter and was charged with illegal recruitment. She believed that she was wrongfully charged because she was being made to pay for the actions of Azul, whom they could not locate.[14] Rea served as the babysitter of Tendenilla. She first met Michael and Alvaro when they all got their non-immigrant visa in Malaysia, while she knew the other private complainants through Azul, who asked her to meet them at the airport in Manila to deliver hotel vouchers. She came back to the Philippines on 19 July 2005. On 15 August 2005, she was taken by agents of Task Force Hunter, the Anti-Illegal Recruitment group under the Philippine National Police, and was informed of the charges against her.[15] After trial, the RTC rendered judgment convicting appellants of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MARIA JENNY REA y GUEVARRA and ESTRELLITA TENDENILLA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in large scale, and accordingly, they are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) plus costs. Accused are further ordered to indemnify each of the complainants, Michael Niño Soriano P100,000.00, Maricel Tumamao P150,000.00, Dandy Mendoza P250,000.00, Rebecca Villaluna P150,000.00, Nyann Pasquito P200,000.00, Alvaro Trinidad P120,000.00 and Cyrus Chavez P132,000.00. Meanwhile, let the case against accused G[i]nette Azul be placed in the archives to be revived upon her arrest and let alias warrant of arrest be issued against her.[16] The trial court found that all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were established through the testimonies of the private complainants and that appellants conspired to commit the crime. On 10 January 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Appellants filed a notice of appeal upon receipt of the unfavorable decision. On 5 September 2011, this Court directed the parties to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation stating that it would no longer file any supplemental brief and would instead adopt its appellee's brief. Appellants meanwhile filed their Supplemental Brief and maintained that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that appellants offered jobs to the private complainants. Appellants essentially argue that the prosecution has failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants claim that their supposed criminal liability is elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55927 4/23