6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In her Brief, accused-appellant assigned the following errors: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT'S DEFENSE. II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Accused-appellant maintains her denial that she was engaged in the business of recruiting possible workers for jobs abroad. She insists that like all the private complainants, she was also an applicant for a job as an overseas worker and that she merely accompanied them to a recruitment agency. She alleges that private complainant Dela Vega and Dela Cruz conspired together, used her name, and represented themselves to the other applicants as being authorized to collect documents and fees and that she only met the other private complainants in the trainings/seminars she attended. Anent the acknowledgment receipt signed by her and presented by the prosecution as evidence, accused-appellant argues that it does not prove that the money received by her was the consideration for private complainant Garces' placement abroad. As to the charges of estafa, accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove that she employed deceit to entice private complainants to part with their money because she did not represent or pass herself off as a licensed recruiter. After a careful review of the records, this Court finds no reason to reverse the decision of the CA. All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are present, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b)[14] of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. More importantly, all the said elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, as ruled by the CA: First off, the first element is admittedly present. Appellant had no license to recruit or engage in placement activities and she herself had admitted to her lack of authority to do so. The Certification dated 7 April 2006 issued by 1he POHA also undeniably establishes this fact. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61569 6/10