The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable. Contrary to appellant’s claim, he is not a mere employee of the manning agency but the crewing manager. As such, he receives job applications, interviews applicants and informs them of the agency’s requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to the applicant’s deployment. As the crewing manager, he was at the forefront of the company’s recruitment activities. Private complainant Lindy Villamor testified that it was appellant who informed him that if he will give a cash bond of P20,000.00, he will be included in the first batch of applicants to be deployed. Notwithstanding the payment of the cash bond as evidenced by a receipt dated December 15, 1999 and issued by the appellant, Villamor was not deployed overseas. He further testified that when he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., he confronted Jose Gasacao and showed to him a photocopy of the receipt. Jose Gasacao gave him the address of the appellant but he failed to recover the amount from the latter. Another private complainant, Erencio C. Alaba testified that he applied as a seaman with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. in May 1999 and submitted all the requirements to appellant. The latter told Alaba that after payment of a cash bond, he will be deployed within three months. On June 3, 1999, Alaba gave P10,000.00 to the appellant as evidenced by a cash voucher which was approved and signed by the appellant in the presence of Alaba. Afterwards, appellant asked Alaba to have his medical examination. He was also informed that those who had completed paying the P20,000.00 cash bond will have priority in deployment. Thus, Alaba gave another P10,000.00 to appellant on August 2, 1999 and was again informed that he will be deployed in a dredging or supply boat within three months from August 1999. Despite appellant’s representations, Alaba was never deployed and was also unable to recover the amount of the cash bond that he paid. Private complainant Dennis Cabangahan testified that he applied as a seaman with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. on July 27, 1999 and paid the cash bond of P19,000.00 as evidenced by a receipt issued by appellant. The latter informed him that he will be deployed abroad within three months. As what had happened to the other complainants, Cabangahan was never deployed overseas nor did he recover his money. Victoriano Cadirao9 also testified that on August 1, 1999, he applied with the manning agency for the position of mess man. He submitted his application to appellant who told him to come back when he has the money to cover the cash bond of P20,000.00. Appellant told him that the payment of the cash bond is optional, but that his deployment will be fast-tracked if he pays the cash bond. On August 10, 1999, he gave P20,000.00 to appellant who issued a receipt. When the promised employment failed to materialize, the appellant told Cadirao to wait for another dredging vessel. In December 1999, he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. so he went to his residence and demanded the return of his money. Appellant however refused to return the amount of the cash bond. On the other hand, Rommel B. Patolen testified that he applied with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. as an ordinary seaman in May 1999. After complying with the requirements, appellant told him to report to the agency thrice a week. From May to December 1999, Patolen reported to the agency as instructed. On December 11, 1999, he gave P20,000.00 to appellant who acknowledged its receipt. Patolen further testified that he paid the cash bond because appellant told him that his prospective employer will arrive in December 1999 from Saudi Arabia with a vessel to accommodate him. He was further advised that he could leave within three months if he paid the cash bond. However, Patolen was never deployed and when he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., he went to the house of the latter and informed him that he was withdrawing his application. Appellant asked him to wait for his new agency, Ocean Grandeur, which has no license yet. The foregoing testimonies of the private complainants clearly established that appellant is not a mere employee of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. As the crewing manager, it was appellant who made representations with the private complainants that he can secure overseas employment for them upon payment of the cash bond. It is well settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. 10 Appellant’s act of promising the private complainants that they will be deployed abroad within three months after they have paid the cash bond clearly shows that he is engaged in illegal recruitment. The trial court’s appreciation of the complainants’ testimonies deserves the highest respect since it was in a better position to asses their credibility. Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In the case of People v. Cabais,11 we have held that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. We further stated that: In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed complainant of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they personally met the accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.12 Clearly, the acts of appellant vis-à-vis the private complainants, either as the crewing manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. or as a mere employee of the same, constitute acts of large scale illegal recruitment which should not be countenanced. We find no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. It was established that he promised overseas employment to five applicants, herein private complainants. He interviewed and required them to complete and submit documents purportedly needed for their employment. Although he informed them that it is optional, he collected cash bonds and promised their deployment notwithstanding the proscription against its collection under Section 60 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 804213 which state that: