4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Both elements of the crime were established in these cases, namely, (a) accusedappellant defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (b) complainant suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result. [37] Complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work overseas nor did they get their money back, thus causing them damage and prejudice. [38] The issues that misappropriation on the part of accused-appellant of the money paid by complainants and their demand for the same were not sufficiently established are immaterial and irrelevant, conversion and demand not being elements of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-59470 and Q-94-59471, the amounts involved are both P45,000.00, as testified to by complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr. and Ronald Frederizo. Pursuant to Art. 315, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the ruling in People v. Gabres,[39] the trial court correctly meted accused-appellant the maximum penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor in each case. This is so considering that the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the felony is six (6) years, eight (8) months, and 21 days to eight (8) years of prision mayor. The amounts involved in these cases exceed P22,000.00 by at least P20,000.00, necessitating an increase of one (1) year for every P10,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence is thus from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. The trial court can exercise its discretion only within this period. Thus, the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, where the amount involved is P38,000.00, the indeterminate sentence which should be imposed on accused-appellant should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. In accordance with the ruling in People v. Mercado,[40] the fact that no receipts were presented to prove the amounts paid by complainants to accused-appellant does not prevent an award of actual damages in view of the fact that complainants were able to prove by their respective testimonies and affidavits that accused-appellant was involved in the recruitment process and succeeded in inveigling them to give their money to her. The award of moral damages should likewise be upheld as it was shown to have factual basis. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa against complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, and Larry Tibor is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that, in the cases for estafa, accused-appellant is sentenced: (1) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52128 11/14