5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly was thus reset to January 16, 1993, but private complainants were still unable to leave because of the same excuse that appellants gave (Ibid., pp. 11-12). Private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer interested in working abroad. They were informed by Arabia's sister, however, that appellants were arrested by the NBI and detained at the Quezon City Jail (Ibid., p. 12). Records also showed that appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment (Ibid., March 14, 1994, p. 4; May 4, 1994, p. 5). Upon a joint complaint filed with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, the corresponding Informations were filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC, Decision, pp. 1-4)."[5] Upon the other hand, accused-appellants denied having recruited the complainants. Dioscora Arabia claimed that the complainants went to her house "para magpahilot." She denied that she got money from them and claimed that she herself was a victim of an illegal recruiter. She applied for employment abroad with a certain Rebecca de Jesus who was also the recruiter of the complainants. She paid Rebecca de Jesus P30,000.00, and consequently, she filed a complaint for estafa and illegal recruitment against Rebecca de Jesus in February 1993. Similarly, Francisca Tomas claimed that she was a job applicant and she met Dioscora Arabia at the house of Rebecca de Jesus. She also saw the complainants as applicants for a job there. At the time of their arrest in March 11, 1993, she was with living with Arabia. According to her, she also filed complaints against Rebecca de Jesus. Assessing the evidence, the trial court gave full credit to the version of the prosecution and found unmeritorious accused-appellants' defense. The trial found accusedappellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and of five counts of estafa. The court explained thus: "After an evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the court finds the evidence sufficient to prove the quilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As testified to by the complaining witnesses, accused Arabia convinced the complaining witnesses to apply for employment in Taiwan by making representations that they will be getting a salary of P20,000.00 a month, and upon arrival in Taiwan, they will be paid their two months salary in advance. Accused likewise told them that they will be leaving on December 18, 1992. It was also accused Arabia who demanded the payment of P16,000.00 placement fee from each complainant. Undoubtedly, therefore, accused Arabia and Tomas were engaged in recruiting workers for employment abroad. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52758 4/12