4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly appellant's promises to send them abroad. As president and general manager, it is of no doubt that accused-appellant was in the forefront of the recruitment activities, otherwise she would have not received placement fees from private complainants. Also, the positions held by accusedappellant vest upon her the authority of managing, controlling and directing the corporate affairs. The attempt of accused-appellant to escape liability by passing the blame to Ellen Maborang, a sub-agent or independent contractor, has no bearing. It can be gleaned from the testimonies of private complainants that accused-appellant, co-accused Ana, and Ellen cooperated and coordinated in recruiting applicants. It was both Ana, as recruitment and marketing officer, and Ellen, as agent, who brought recruits to Green Pastures and introduced them to accused-appellant. The success of their illegal scheme depended on their joint efforts x x x.[27] The CA likewise maintained Rios' conviction for eight counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a). According to the CA, the same evidence proving Rios' liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for Estafa.[28] The maximum periods of Rios' sentence in the Estafa cases were adjusted by the CA in accordance with the amounts involved.[29] Rios filed a Notice of Appeal[30] on May 14, 2015, which was given due course by the CA on May 27, 2015.[31] On May 4, 2017, Rios filed a Supplemental Brief[32] arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as there was no direct evidence of her complicity in the acts complained of. She did not directly transact with the private complainants or personally receive any money from them. The private complainants dealt with Mabborang and Espiritu. The prosecution did not even allege, much less prove, the existence of a conspiracy between Rios and her co-accused. Rios was convicted as the principal in Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa but her participation in the purported illegal acts was not established. Rios further asserts that the Confession of Judgment is of doubtful validity and cannot be used as basis to determine her criminal liability. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Supplemental Brief[33] on June 5, 2018 maintaining that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, Rios' guilt for the offenses charged. According to the OSG, Rios cannot exculpate herself merely on the ground that she did not directly transact with the private complainants as the latter positively identified her as one of the persons who enticed them to part with their money based on the assurance that they would be deployed abroad. Issue Whether the guilt of Rios was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court's Ruling The CA Decision is affirmed with modification. The Illegal Recruitment case https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232 9/29