6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly hand in the recruitment of the complainants. The CA pointed out that appellant, together with Susan, repeatedly assured the private complainants that her consultancy firm could deploy them for overseas employment,[37] leading the appellate court to conclude that appellant consciously and actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.[38] Aggrieved, appellant brought the case to us on appeal, raising the same arguments she had raised at the CA. We affirm appellant's conviction. Recruitment and placement refers to the act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.[39] Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage.[40] But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[41] It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.[42] Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all the five complainants were promised to be sent abroad by Susan and herein appellant[43] as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow up transactions between appellant and her victims were done inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all four receipts issued to the victims bear the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy,[44] with two of the said receipts personally signed by appellant herself.[45] Indubitably, appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA.[46] Absent any showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered, would change the result, we are bound by said findings.[47] Appellant's contention that she had to change the name of her travel agency to disassociate herself with Susan's recruitment activities is too lame to deserve serious elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33955 5/9