In the case of Mr. Arnel Diana, on July 20, 1992, he along with his brother-in-law, met the appellant and his co-accused Irene Yabut at their room in P.M. Apartelle, No. 26 N. Domingo Street, San Juan Metro Manila (TSN, June 15, 1993, p. 30). Diana and his companion were assured by the appellant that they could leave for abroad (Ibid). The appellant and his co-accused asked Diana to pay the fee of P50,000.00 for the travel documents and POEA papers (TSN, June 15, 1993, p. 31). Diana was made to sign an employment contract (Ibid; Exhs. A to A-4 and P to P-4) which convinced him to part with his money (TSN, June 15, 1993, pp. 40-42). The amount was paid on installments. Diana made the first payment on July 20, 1992 for P15,000.00 (TSN, June 15, 1993, pp. 33; Exhs. B and Q pros), handed over to the appellant and Irene Yabut (TSN, June 15, 1993, pp. 40-41). The second installment on July 24, 1992 for P25,000.00 (Ibid, Exhs. C and R pros) and the third installment was given on July 27, 1992 for P10,000.00 (TSN, July 15, 1993, p. 34; Exhs. D and S pros). Diana was first scheduled to leave on August 8, 1992 but his departure did not push through (TSN, June 15, 1993, p. 35). Disappointed, Diana asked the appellant and his co-accused Irene Yabut for an explanation. Appellant cited lack of escort as the reason for his non-departure (Ibid). The second scheduled date of departure was also cancelled for alleged unavailability of the Japanese who was to hire him (Ibid). Diana was scheduled five (5) times to depart but each time the departure went for naught, while appellant and co-accused Irene Yabut kept on assuring him that they were going to do something about it (TSN, June 15, 1993, p. 36). Exasperated, Diana demanded for the return of his money from appellant (TSN, June 15, 1993, pp. 37-38). Despite the promises of the appellant, the money he paid was never refunded. Thereafter, Diana found out from another complainant Henry Ilar, that the appellant and his co-accused were not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment (TSN, June 15, 1993, p. 38). In the case of private complainant Antonio S. Bernardo, he entered into an employment contract with appellants co-accused Irene Yabut (TSN, August 18, 1993, pp. 2-3). Bernardo was told by the appellant that he did not affix his signature on the employment contract because of his government employment i.e., a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), but appellant on several occasions promised Bernardo that he would be able to leave for abroad (TSN, August 18, 1993, p. 3). Still another complainant, Fely Casanova testified that she first met appellant and his co-accused Irene Yabut who introduced themselves as Mr. and Mrs. Madrid on June 8, 1992 (TSN, August 18, 1993, p. 5). Casanova always saw the appellant at the P.M. Apartelle on Domingo Street, San Juan, Metro Manila whenever she made follow-ups on her papers (Ibid). Casanova also saw the appellant and his co-accused Irene Yabut at the Town and Country on December 18, and 22, 1992 when the two were already in hiding. They were talking to other applicants whom they promised to send abroad (TSN, August 19, 1993, p. 6). On those two occasions, appellant and his co-accused assured her about a job placement abroad or the return of her money (Ibid). Realizing that their overseas jobs would never materialize, complainants hauled appellant and his co-accused to the Department of Justice, which conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaints. Both were subsequently charged with (1) Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Criminal Case No. 98224, and (2) eight (8) counts of Estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 98997-99004. The Information for Illegal Recruitment reads:iii[3]