6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Corollary to this, Section 6 of RA 8042 defines illegal recruitment as follows: [A]ny 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, when undertaken by a non-licensee on non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that any such nonlicensee or non-holder who, in any manner offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: xxxx (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment x x x is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. We agree with the trial court and the CA that the prosecution was able to establish that appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment in large scale. It was proved that appellant was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad; she offered or promised employment abroad to private complainants; she received monies from private complainants purportedly as placement or processing fees; that private complainants were not actually deployed to Brunei; that despite demands, appellant failed to reimburse or refund to private complainants their monies; and that appellant committed these prohibited acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. To recall, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero, Cathedral, Orias, Suobiron, Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant went to Pavia, Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who could send them to Brunei for work; that appellant impressed upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for work by showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card; and appellant collected processing or placement fees from the private complainants in various amounts ranging from P5,000.00 to P20,000.00; and that she did not reimburse said amounts despite demands. In addition, it was proved that appellant does not have any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.[16] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63211 7/9