We find no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. It was established that he promised overseas employment to five applicants, herein private complainants. He interviewed and required them to complete and submit documents purportedly needed for their employment. Although he informed them that it is optional, he collected cash bonds and promised their deployment notwithstanding the proscription against its collection under Section 60 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 804213 which state that: SEC. 60. Prohibition on Bonds and Deposits. – In no case shall an employment agency require any bond or cash deposit from the worker to guarantee performance under the contract or his/her repatriation. We find as flimsy and self serving appellant’s assertion that he was unaware of the prohibition against the collection of bonds or cash deposits from applicants. It is an established dictum that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.14 The defense of good faith is neither available. It is also undisputed that appellant failed to deploy the private complainants without any valid reason, this notwithstanding his promise to them that those who can pay the cash bond will be deployed within three months from payment of the same. Such failure to deploy constitutes a violation of Section 6 (l) of RA No. 8042. Worse, when it became clear that appellant cannot deploy the private complainants without their fault, he failed to return the amount of the cash bond paid by them. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, five complainants testified against appellant’s acts of illegal recruitment, thereby rendering his acts tantamount to economic sabotage. Under Section 7 (b) of RA No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable of large scale illegal recruitment. WHEREFORE, the May 18, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00800 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (On Official Leave) HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Acting Chairman, First Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.