As such, the Court concluded that appellant was an employee of the Goce spouses, as she was actually making referrals to the agency. She was, therefore, engaged in recruitment activities. The same factual circumstance obtains in this case. Although accused-appellant was not an employee of the alleged illegal recruiter Julie Micua, the evidence show that she was the one who approached complainants and prodded them to seek employment abroad. It was through her that they met Julia Micua. This is clearly an act of referral. Worse, accused-appellant declared that she was capable of placing them in jobs overseas. Suffice it to say that complainants recruitment would not have been consummated were it not for the direct participation of accused-appellant in the recruitment process. Article 38, paragraph (a) of the Labor Code provides that: Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or nonholders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. Illegal recruitment is conducted in a large scale if perpetrated against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons, individually or as a group.21[21] All these three essential elements are present in the case at bar. As earlier discussed, accused-appellant recruited the six complainants. Further, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration certified that neither accused-appellant nor Julie Micua is licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.22[22] Accused-appellants contention that she was a mere applicant and eventually a victim like complainants holds no water. Note should be made of the fact that throughout the trial of the case, no mention was made that accused-appellant exerted any effort to seek a refund for her money nor did she file a case against Julie Micua, her alleged victimizer. Her only excuse was that at the time of the filing of the complaint in Manila, she was confused and the investigating officer would not listen to her side of the controversy. 21[21] People vs. Ganaden, 299 SCRA 433, 438 (1998) 22[22] Exhibit "C," Records, p. 162.