provide them employment as factory workers in Taiwan. As a result, the five (5) complainants who desperately wanted to seek greener pastures for a higher income to improve their lot parted with what little money they had. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-9458107, Q-94-58108, Q-94-58111 and Q-94-58113, the amount defrauded of each complainant was P15,000.00. The Revised Penal Code imposes 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. The amount involved in each of the four cases for estafa is within the above range. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense.[17] The trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum for each count. In accordance with this Courts ruling in People vs. Saley,[18] where the amount defrauded is P15,000.00, and in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional medium to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days ofprision correccional maximum for each of the four counts of estafa. As regards Crim. Case No. Q-94-58112 where the amount defrauded was P25,000.00, also in accordance with the Saley case, she must be held subject to the penalty in its maximum period or prision mayor in its minimum period (not any higher on account of the fact that the amount in excess of P22,000.00 provided for by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is less than P10,000.00). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no attending circumstances, accused-appellant shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional medium as minimum penalty to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor minimum as maximum penalty.[19] We also sustain the award of actual damages by the trial court as all the complainants were able to produce receipts, except Eva Amada who testified that she had lost her receipt. But even lacking that, she is still entitled to actual damages as she was able to prove by her testimony that accused-appellant was involved in the entire recruitment process and that she got her money.[20] Finally, we note that the trial court failed to award actual damages to Angelo Ballester who also testified in court that he paid accused-appellant P10,000.00 as placement fee which was supported by a receipt signed by accused-appellant. Considering that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review[21], we likewise award P10,000.00 to Angelo Ballester by way of actual damages. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo finding accused-appellant BETH N. BANZALES guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Crim. Case No. Q-94-58106 and of Estafa in Crim. Cases Nos. Q-94-58107, Q-94-58108, Q-94-58111, Q-94-58113 and Q-94-58112 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the following modifications: 1) In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-94-58107, Q-94-58108, Q-94-58111 and Q-94-58113, accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum period