4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly against accused-appellant. We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to make an assessment of the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate complainants' truthfulness, honesty and candor.[23] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, accused-appellant's mere denial cannot prevail.[24] Furthermore, accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities, as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency.[25] Her acts constituted recruitment, and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company, her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities.[26] Since the recruitment involves three or more persons, accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code with life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos. As to the charges of estafa, accused-appellant contends that she is not liable for the offenses charged because she did not appropriate for her own use the money given to her by complainants as placement and passport fees. The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[27] From the foregoing, the fact that the money was appropriated by accused for her own use is not an element of the crime of estafa. Thus, accused-appellant Cabais' contention under such ground is untenable. Moreover, accused-appellant misrepresented herself to complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Korea. Complainants were successfully induced to part with their money, causing them damage and prejudice. Consequently, accused-appellant is guilty of estafa. The law prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period for estafa in case the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. If such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.[28] In Criminal Case No. 14000-R, the amount defrauded was P21,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree to the prescribed penalty, which is prision correccional in its minimum period to prision correccional in its medium period. Thus, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is anywhere within six (6) months and one https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50735 7/10