6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly denied knowing the other complainants. According to appellant, she came to know Rogelio when Susan specifically identified him as the one who cooked the dishes after some guests prodded Susan.[28] Unsatisfied with appellant's explanation, the trial court promulgated a Decision[29] finding her guilty of large scale illegal recruitment. The fallo of the trial court's July 16, 2002 Decision reads: WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Teresita (Tessie) Laogo y Villamor guilty as principal beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 as imposed by law[;] to indemnify the private offended parties x x x actual damages, as follows: Teodulo dela Cruz - P15,000.00, Billy dela Cruz - P73,000.00, Dante Lopez P6,000.00, Rogelio Enriquez - P3,000.00, and Edwin Enriquez P12,000.00[;] and to pay the costs of the proceedings. In the service of her sentence the said accused, a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the full time during which she had undergone preventive imprisonment, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. Pending the actual apprehension of the other accused Susan Navarro, [who is] still at-large, on the strength of the warrant of arrest earlier issued, let the record be committed to the archives subject to recall and reinstatement, should circumstances so warrant for due prosecution against her of this case. SO ORDERED.[30] Appellant filed an appeal before this Court, but said appeal was transferred to the CA following our pronouncement in People v. Mateo.[31] In her Appellant's Brief[32] before the CA, appellant insisted that she had no hand in the recruitment of the complainants and maintains that the recruitment activities were made solely upon the initiative of accused Susan Navarro.[33] Appellant anchored her defense on the testimonies of the complainants who declared that the transactions and the payments were made not with her but with Susan.[34] Appellant admitted that her consultancy firm was merely engaged in the business of assisting clients in the procurement of passports and visas, and denied that her agency was involved in any recruitment activity as defined under the Labor Code, as amended.[35] On July 31, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision affirming appellant's conviction.[36] The CA noted that although at times, it was Susan with whom the complainants transacted, the records nevertheless bear that appellant had a elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33955 4/9