6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly accessory penalty. The Court likewise finds OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN and BEATRIZ B. CAGALINGAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt (in Criminal Case No. 2003-238) of violating paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, for swindling Arcele J. Bacorro the sum of P40,000.00 with the promised to employ her in Macao (sic), China. Accordingly, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, both accused are hereby sentenced and SO ORDERED to suffer the imprisonment of Four (4) Years Nine (9) Months and Eleven (11) days of Prision Correccional, as the Minimum, to Nine (9) years of Prision Mayor, as the Maximum, including its accessory penalty. The Court declines to award damages in estafa cases since they were provided already in the case of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. SO ORDERED.[5] Decision of the CA On March 18, 2011, the CA affirmed the convictions of the accused-appellants by the RTC,[6] viz.: WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[7] Hence, this appeal. Issue The accused-appellants assign the sole error that: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RTC DECISION FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.[8] The accused-appellants insist that the complainants well knew that they were not connected to any recruitment agency, or that they were not recruiters themselves; that elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62691 9/16