appellant. For appellant to say now that it was Elizabeth Bernal who actually recruited Domingo Mariano and that it was Macon Dionisio who recruited Eva Peralta, Rizza Oliva and Angelo Ballester is simply preposterous. Moreover, there is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives against accused other than to bring her to the bar of justice for the crime of large scale illegal recruitment and their testimonies were straightforward, credible and convincing. [13] It is also of no moment that, as pointed out by accused-appellant, the amounts tendered by the complainants were insufficient to cover the costs of overseas employment and that the complainants did not testify as to the specifics of their alleged employment (exact amount of salary and place of work) inasmuch as these are immaterial in the prosecution and conviction for the crime of large scale illegal recruitment. In fine, there is no doubt as to accused-appellants guilt for all the essential elements of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant recruited at least five persons, giving them the impression that she had the capability of sending them to Taiwan to be employed as factory workers. She collected various amounts allegedly for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. Large scale illegal recruitment is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code,[14] hence, the trial court imposed the proper penalty. As regards the conviction of accused-appellant for estafa on five (5) counts in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-94-58107, Q-94-58108, Q-94-58111, Q-94-58112 and Q-9458113, we have ruled in a number of cases[15] that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted of violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa, provided the elements of the crime are present. In People vs. Romero,[16] the Court said that the elements for estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. In relation thereto, Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty thus 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000 but does not exceed P22,000, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such a case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provision of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. In the case before us, we are convinced that accused-appellant defrauded complainants through deceit. They were obviously misled into believing that she could