3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the result would be that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would become an issue in the trial of many persons charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a complete breakdown.[37] We now come to the third, fourth and fifth assigned errors, all of which involve the finding of guilt by the trial court. Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur. First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.[38] In case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the accused commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[39] In this case, the first element is present. The certification of POEA Officer-in-Charge Macarulay states that appellant is not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment and placement. The second element is also present. Appellant is presumed engaged in recruitment and placement under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Both Nancy Araneta and Lourdes Modesto testified that appellant promised them employment for a fee. Their testimonies corroborate each other on material points: the briefing conducted by appellant, the time and place thereof, the fees involved. Appellant has not shown that these witnesses were incited by any motive to testify falsely against her. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain that no improper motive existed and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[40] Appellant's denials cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the fact asserted easily overrides negative testimony.[41] That appellant did not receive any payment for the promised or offered employment is of no moment. From the language of the statute, the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not;" it suffices that the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. The testimonies of Araneta and Modesto, coming as they do from credible witnesses, meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed recruitment and placement. We therefore do not deem it necessary to delve into the second and third assigned errors assailing the legality of appellant's arrest and the seizure of the application forms. A warrantless arrest, when unlawful, has the effect of invalidating the search incidental thereto and the articles so seized are rendered inadmissible in evidence.[42] Here, even if the documents seized were deemed inadmissible, her conviction would stand in view of Araneta and Modesto's testimonies. Appellant attempts to cast doubt on the prosecution's case by claiming in her ninth https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/49893 14/20