4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its Decision dated September 7, 2012, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of violation of Section 6(l) and (m) of RA 8042. Rios was convicted as the principal in Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). Rios was likewise held guilty for eight (8) counts of Estafa and for each count, she was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional as minimum to eleven (11) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. Rios was also ordered to reimburse the fees paid by the private complainants.[25] In arriving at its Decision, the trial court reasoned: x x x [T]he fact that Green Pastures was a holder of a valid license at the time to deploy workers abroad did not serve to benefit herein accused, as she was positively pointed to as one of the persons who enticed the complainants to part with their money upon the fraudulent representation that they would be able to secure for them employment abroad. xxxx In fine, this Court arrived at this conclusion after additionally considering the following established acts of the accused: (1). her agency's acceptance of the placement fee given by the complainants; (2). the fact that she communicated to the complainants the date of their departure, and, (3). Accused's execution of Confession of Judgment dated 8 February 2010. All these acts indubitably show that indeed accused was engaged in illegal recruitment together with the other two (2) accused. Thus, illegal recruitment having been committed against eight (8) victims is illegal recruitment in large scale x x x. xxxx The prosecution likewise established that the accused is guilty of the crime of Estafa as defined under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code x x x. xxxx In the instant case, all these elements are present: the accused, together with the other accused who are at large, deceived the complainants into believing that the agency had the power and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Taiwan as factory workers, that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fees; that complainants were never deployed abroad, and that complainants waited for at least a year only to realized (sic) that they were hoodwinked as no jobs were waiting for them abroad. As all these representations of the accused proved false, paragraph 2 (a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable.[26] The CA Decision https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232 7/29