6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly processing of their documents for work in Korea. Appellant promised to secure their visas and employment contracts within three months. On 30 January 2002, private complainants met with appellant, who was accompanied by a certain Narcisa Santos, at Wendy's in Arquiza Street, Manila for signing of contract. However, the names written on the employment contracts were not private complainants' names. Appellant explained that the contracts were supposedly for other applicants who sought her services but later backed out. Appellant assured them that original contracts bearing their names would subsequently be provided. Private complainants signed the contracts and paid PI5,000 each as their second partial payment. On 7 February 2002, private complainants received information that the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group arrested appellant for illegal recruitment. When private complainants confronted appellant at the Manila City Hall where she was held, they demanded the return of their payments amounting to P35,000 each, except for Marcelino Lejos whose total payment only amounted to P-20,000. Appellant denied the charges against her and promised them that they would get their money back. Subsequently, private complainants were able to secure a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that appellant was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. Another complainant, Lederle Panesa, alleged that in August 2001, she met with appellant, who offered her work in Korea for a placement fee of P75,000. On 7 September 2001, Panesa gave appellant P15,000 as initial payment. Appellant assured Panesa that she would be leaving for Korea on the second week of November 2001 and that the balance of the placement fee could be paid upon her receipt of the visa. However, after said meeting, Panesa no longer heard from appellant, which prompted Panesa to visit appellant's office. Appellant informed Panesa that there were no job openings in Korea at that time. Appellant offered Panesa employment in other countries such as Malaysia and Palau, but Panesa refused the offer and demanded the return of her money. Nevertheless, appellant was able to persuade Panesa to wait until December 2001. Appellant never contacted Panesa thereafter. On 7 February 2002, Panesa was informed that appellant was apprehended for illegal recruitment. Panesa proceeded to the Office of the City Prosecutor in Manila, but failed to confront appellant. It was only then that Panesa learned about appellant not being authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. For the defense, appellant was presented as the lone witness. Appellant denied the charges against her. She testified that she was introduced to private complainants by a certain Cezar Manonson and that the owner of the office she is renting is her relative. Private complainants allegedly sought her help regarding possible work in Korea and that she merely explained the procedure for overseas employment to them. She was hesitant to help them because she does not recruit workers as she herself was also applying for work as factory worker through Narcisa Santos. She admitted having received money from private complainants and issuing receipts for the payments, upon instructions from Narcisa Santos. She confirmed her signature on the petty cash vouchers she issued to private complainants, evidencing their payments. She testified that she gave the payments to Narcisa Santos. However, she admitted that she does elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60550 5/19