inquired with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) whether or not appellant was licensed to recruit persons for overseas employment.They were informed that appellant is not a licensed recruiter and they procured a certification to this effect. [14] Complainant Alfred Bryant Berador,[15] a cook, testified that on or about February 22, 1993, he was introduced to appellant by one of her partners in the agency. He met her in their office in front of the Municipal Hall of Valenzuela. He paid her a total amount of P24,000 as placement and processing fees for his employment in Japan. He was issued a receipt for each payment made.[16] He was not, however, allowed to leave for Japan immediately. Complainant Berador was first required by appellant to undergo a seminar to learn Nippongo for one week. However, on the fourth day of the seminar, appellant was arrested by the authorities. Complainant Berador subsequently learned that appellant did not have a license to recruit workers for overseas employment. He went to the POEA and was issued a certification stating this fact.[17] Complainant Frennie Majarucon,[18] jobless, testified that she was introduced to appellant by her kumadre named Elvie sometime in March 1993. They first met in the office of appellant in front of the Municipal Hall of Valenzuela. Appellant informed her that she had an available job for her in Hong Kong and that she would need P45,000 for placement and processing fees and P2,000 for her passport. Complainant Majarucon was only able to give P22,000, which was evidenced by the receipts issued to her by appellant. [19] However, complainant Majarucon never left for Hong Kong. She thus inquired from the people in appellants office whether the amount she paid to appellant can be refunded. She was promptly informed, however, that appellant had been arrested and was already in jail for illegal recruitment. Complainant Majarucon then proceeded to the POEA where she found out that the appellant was indeed not a licensed recruiter. For her part, appellant Olermo denied all the charges against her.[20] She alleged that she was engaged only in visa assistance. She denied ever having represented herself as possessing authority to deploy workers for overseas employment. She thus explained that she only offered complainants Villanueva, Aquino-Villanueva, Aparicio and Majarucon assistance in processing their tourist visas. With respect to the accusation of complainant Berador, appellant alleged that she was only helping him process his trainees visa. On August 23, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision convicting appellant of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (1) In Crim. Case No. 2860-V-93, the Court finds accused Marlene Olermo @ Marlene Tolentino guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as principal of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale as defined and penalized under Article 38 in relation to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 2018, without any attending mitigating or aggravating circumstance and hereby sentences her to a penalty of life