6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly constituted deceit as the first element of Estafa. Her representation induced the complainants to part with their money, resulting in damage that is the second element of the Estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's affirmance of her guilt for Estafa as charged was in order. Appellant's argument that there was no proof that she received money from the complainants deserves no credence. Suffice it to say that money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."[35] Besides, even if there is no receipt for the money given by the complainants to appellant, the former's respective testimonies and affidavits clearly narrate the latter's involvement in the prohibited recruitment. Penalties Finally, as to the penalties imposed, the CA was correct in applying the provisions of RA 10951 to the imposable penalties for Estafa based on the amount defrauded in its Amended Decision. However, the Court deems it proper to further modify the penalties to properly apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review and confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."[36] The defrauded amounts involved in this case are: P43,500.00 in Criminal Case No. 10276566; P37,500.00 in Criminal Case No. 10-276565; and P34,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 10-276568. Under RA 10951,[37] when the amount involved is over P40,000.00 but not exceeding P1,200,000.00, the prescribed penalty is only arresto mayor, in its maximum period to prision correccional, in its minimum period, i.e., four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. However, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term should be taken from arresto mayor, in its minimum and medium periods, i.e., one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months, while the maximum term should be within the medium period of the prescribed penalty, i.e., one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in this case. Thus, the Court finds it proper to impose a penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional, as maximum. On the other hand, if the amount involved is less than P40,000.00, the imposable penalty is only arresto mayor, in its medium and maximum periods, i.e., two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months, as is applicable to Criminal Case Nos. 10276565 and 10-276568. The provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law no longer apply because the imposable penalty is less than one (1) year. Thus, a straight penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, in its maximum period is proper.[38] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Amended Decision dated 30 January 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06619 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as to the imposable penalties for Estafa: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66642 8/13