5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa. (Citations omitted.) Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa as: Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x: xxxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits. The elements of 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.[29] Appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of estafa because the element of deceit is lacking. He insists on the absence of proof that he made any false statement or fraudulent representation to private complainants. We are not persuaded. As we had previously discussed herein, private complainants were able to establish, through their positive and credible testimonies, that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused to mislead private complainants into believing that appellant and his co-accused, for a fee, can deploy private complainants abroad for employment. Decena testified that appellant gave her a copy of the purported job order for Korea, while Poserio avowed that appellant encouraged him to apply for work abroad. Daud, appellant’s fellow conspirator, accepted placement fees from private complainants, even issuing receipts for some; instructed private complainants to undergo medical examination; and took private complainants’ passports. The representations made by appellant and his co-accused to private complainants were actually false and fraudulent, not only because they were not duly authorized to undertake recruitment for overseas employment, but also because there were no actual jobs waiting for private complainants in Korea and private complainants never had a chance to leave for work abroad. Appellant also argues that the second element of estafa, which is prejudice or pecuniary loss, was not established during trial as the prosecution was unable to present any receipt signed by appellant proving that he received money from private complainants. We disagree once more with appellant. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57079 We reiterate that when conspiracy has been 14/19