6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly deployment abroad, as she even issued receipts to them. At any rate, absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.[19] Private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who asked money from them in consideration for their deployment abroad. She impressed on complainants that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for employment so much so that the latter got convinced to part with their money in exchange therefor.[20] Illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.[21] Second, the March 1, 2004 Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration unmistakably reveals that the accused-appellant neither had a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.[22] Notably, instead of assailing the certification, she admitted during the pre-trial that she did not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.[23] Third, it was established that there were five complainants, i.e., Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Duldulao. The CA observed that: x x x x complainants came forward and charged appellant with illegal recruitment. Appellant's claim that she never met private complainants before was belied by her own admission at pre-trial. xxx xxx xxx Private complainants' individual testimonies were so replete with details on how appellant convincingly, albeit deceptively, enticed them to pay all her demands in case, how she provided for their fake documents, and how she manipulated their thoughts and dreams for a better life, ending up in the cruel realization that she was nothing but a fraud.[24] Indeed, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution. Estafa under under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC We likewise affirm accused-appellant's conviction for five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment under RA 8042 or the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.[25] The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[26] Here, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant deceived private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment, despite her not being licensed by the POEA to recruit elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63200 6/12