4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly recruitment in large scale and four counts of estafa. reads: The fallo of the RTC decision WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered CONVICTING the accused as principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa (four counts) and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) for illegal recruitment in large scale; and the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision [correccional], as minimum, to Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum for EACH count of Estafa. The accused is also ordered to pay each of the complainant[s] the amount of P80,000.00. In the service of the sentence, the accused is credited with a x x x the full extent of her [preventive] imprisonment if she agrees in writing to observe the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners; otherwise, only 4/5 of the time of such preventive imprisonment shall be credited to her. SO ORDERED.[9] The trial court relied on the testimony of Severino Maranan, Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, that appellant is not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment at the time she promised but failed to place the four private complainants for work abroad. It accorded greater weight to the testimonies of private complainants who positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them for employment in Taiwan and received the placement fees. The court a quo likewise found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa for misrepresenting herself as having the power and capacity to recruit and place private complainants as factory workers in Taiwan. Such misrepresentation, the trial court stressed, induced private complainants to part with their money. The RTC brushed aside appellant’s defense that she was merely a cashier of Golden Gate and that the same is owned by Marilen Callueng. It gave little weight to the receipts submitted by appellant to prove that she turned over the placement fees to Callueng. The trial court observed nothing in said receipts indicating that the money came from private complainants. Dissatisfied, appellant Chua filed a Notice of Appeal[10] on April 15, 2005. By Decision dated September 15, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC ruling. It modified the penalty for each of the four counts of estafa by imposing upon appellant an indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 13 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 4/14