5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly These arguments fail to persuade. Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: (1) The accused undertook [a] recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. (2) He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. (3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[8] Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as follows: "xxx [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers [which] includes referrals, contact services, promis[es] or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engagement in recruitment and placement." There is no doubt as to accused-appellants' guilt for all the essential elements of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellants recruited at least four persons, giving them the impression that they had the capability to send them to Taiwan for employment. They collected various amounts allegedly for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. It is settled that "the fact that an accused in an illegal recruitment case did not issue the receipts for amounts received from the complainants has no bearing on his culpability so long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment." [9] It has also been held that "the Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentations of receipts in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses."[10] The complainants were positive and categorical in their testimonies that they personally met accused-appellants and that the latter asked from them sums of money in exchange for the promised employment overseas. Complainants had no motive to testify falsely against accused-appellants. Needless to state, against the positive and categorical statements of the complainants, the mere denials of accused-appellants and their pinpointing of the crime to one Rebecca de Jesus who was never produced in court cannot prevail. As the Court held in another illegal recruitment case, "with the accusedappellant's failure to present the person who was allegedly responsible for the recruitment of the complainants, she risked the adverse inference and legal https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52758 9/12