recruiters gave complainants the impression that they had the power and ability to send the latter to work in various foreign destinations, when in fact they had none. Relying on their assurances and promises of employment abroad, complainants, with much hope and expectation for immediate deployment, agreed to part with their hard-earned money to expedite the processing and approval of their applications. We find no cogent reason likewise to disturb the lower courts findings on the existence of a conspiracy since each accused played a part in the recruitment of complainants.[13] Indeed, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses indubitably show a delineation of roles among the accused. Bonifacio Mioza and Melva Mioza were the managers/heads of the illegal recruitment office. Gloria Sarmiento was the field recruiter actively enlisting prospective job applicants together with Bonifacio and Melba Mioza. Accused-appellant Lourdes Gamboa was the office assistant who answered the queries of applicants and performed clerical work. Conspiracy to defraud aspiring overseas contract workers was evident from the acts of the malefactors whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime clearly indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. [14] As such, all the accused, including accused-appellant, are equally guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment since in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. Accused-appellant assails the factual basis of the trial court in ruling that she engaged in illegal recruitment, arguing that she was just an applicant herself whom accused Melba Mioza utilized to help in the office work while waiting for deployment abroad. Her active participation however in the illegal recruitment process belies her profession of innocence. Complainant Roger Castro testified Q: What else happened? A: x x x Melba Mioza told Lourdes to prepare the application form, madam. Q: And what happened next? A: I was taught by Lourdes how to fill up, madam? Q: What? A: The application form, madam. Q: After filling up the application form, what did you do? A: x x x Lourdes asked me if I have the money to pay, madam. Q: And what did you tell her? x x x x A: I was told that on the 29th after I have paid in a months time I will be able to leave, madam. Q: And who was telling you these things? A: It was Lourdes Gamboa who told me that, madam x x x x Q: x x x but what were those documents being required of you to submit?