The defense imputes to the trial court this lone error: The court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, appellant is challenging the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence. The Courts Ruling The appeal is devoid of merit. Main Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: (1) The accused undertook [a] recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. (2) He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. (3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.vii[7] Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as follows: xxx [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers [which] includes referrals, contact services, promis[es] or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the foregoing elements were present in this case. There is no question that appellant did not have a license to engage in the recruitment of workers, as she herself admitted,viii[8] and that the crime was committed against more than three persons. Appellant merely contends that she did not engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Her argument is belied, however, by the evidence on record. For a fee, appellant promised to find overseas work for Prosecution Witness Emily Perturbos, who testified: Q. Sometime on Nov. 12, 1994, do you remember seeing the accused? xxx xxx xxx