4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly count of estafa. The appellate court held that the prosecution has established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had no license to recruit at the time she promised employment to and received placement fees from private complainants. It dismissed appellant’s defense that she was only a cashier of Golden Gate and that she remitted the placement fees to “the agency’s treasurer.” The Court of Appeals explained that in order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, it is enough that he or she promised or offered employment for a fee, as appellant did. The appellate court held further that the same pieces of evidence which establish appellant��s commission of illegal recruitment also affirm her liability for estafa. It pointed out that appellant defrauded private complainants when she misrepresented that they would be hired abroad upon payment of the placement fee. The Court of Appeals perceived no ill motive on the part of private complainants to testify falsely against appellant. Lastly, the appellate court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court upon appellant Chua for each count of estafa. It raised the maximum period of appellant’s indeterminate sentence from 12 years of prision mayor to 13 years of reclusion temporal. On October 6, 2008, appellant Chua elevated the case to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal.[11] In a Resolution[12] dated July 1, 2009, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. On August 26, 2009, appellant Chua filed a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief)[13] by which she repleaded and adopted all the defenses and arguments raised in her Appellant’s Brief.[14] On September 3, 2009, the Office of the Solicitor General, for the People, filed a Manifestation[15] that it will no longer file a supplemental brief since it has discussed in its Appellee’s Brief[16] all the matters and issues raised in the Appellant’s Brief. Before us, appellant Melissa Chua presents a lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND FOUR (4) COUNTS OF ESTAFA DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.[17] The Office of the Solicitor General, for the people, submits that it has established all the elements necessary to hold appellant Chua liable for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. It cites the testimony of Severino Maranan, Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, and the certification issued by Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II of the POEA, to the effect that appellant was not authorized to engage in recruitment activities. The OSG argues against appellant’s defense that she was only a cashier of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 5/14