6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Article 34[14] of the Labor Code under the heading "Prohibited practices." Thus, under Article 34 of the Labor Code, it is unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee or holder of authority to engage in any of the enumerated prohibited practices, but such acts or practices do not constitute illegal recruitment when undertaken by a licensee or holder of authority. However, under Article 38(A) of the Labor Code, when a non-licensee or non-holder of authority undertakes such "prohibited practices," he or she is liable for illegal recruitment. RA 8042 broadened the definition of illegal recruitment for overseas employment by including thirteen acts or practices which now constitute as illegal recruitment, whether committed by a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not; and (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042. On the other hand, a licensee or holder of authority is also liable for illegal recruitment for overseas employment when he or she undertakes any of the thirteen acts or practices [(a) to (m)] listed under Section 6 of RA 8042. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, the offense of illegal recruitment must be committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. In this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant engaged in large-scale illegal recruitment. First, appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Part of the evidence submitted by the prosecution is a POEA Certification[15] dated 10 March 2003, stating that appellant is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. Appellant admitted that she has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, despite the absence of a license or authority to undertake recruitment activities, appellant gave the impression that she has the power or ability to secure work for private complainants in Korea. Private complainants Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo, and Jimmy Lejos all testified that appellant promised them work as factory workers in Korea and induced them to pay placement fees, which included the expenses for medical examination and the processing of their documents for work in Korea. Appellant even showed pictures of previous applicants, whom she allegedly helped find work abroad. Appellant also explained to them the procedure for overseas employment and promised them that she would secure their visas and employment contracts within three months. The testimonies of Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo, and Jimmy Lejos were corroborated by private respondents Marcelino Lejos and Lederle Panesa, whose Affidavits of Complaint were adopted as their direct testimonies. This Court has held in several cases that an accused who represents to others that he could send workers abroad for employment, even without the authority or license to do so, commits illegal recruitment.[16] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60550 11/19