6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S DEFENSE II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE RETRACTIONS MADE BY COMPLAINANT REYNALDO DAHAB[20] The accused-appellant insists on her innocence, and points to Langreo and Bermudez as the persons who had directly engaged in illegal recruitment. She argues that her participation had been limited to signing the receipts as a witness, and to receiving payments for the medical examinations;[21] that the CA and the RTC had disregarded the recantation by Dahab; and that had the evidence been limited to the testimonies of Caniazares and Miparanum, she would have only been liable for simple illegal recruitment.[22] Did the CA correctly affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa? Ruling of the Court We affirm the assailed judgment of the CA. I Illegal Recruitment Committed in Large Scale Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.[23] It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.[24] The CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the RTC for illegal recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed acts of recruitment against at least three persons (namely: Canizares, Dahab, and Miparanum) despite her elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61699 6/13