6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so. The acts committed by the accused constituted illegal recruitment in large scale, whose essential elements are the following: (a) The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 43 of the Labor Code; (b) The accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (c) The accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons individually or as a group.[3] It is the lack of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.[4] To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end. In addition to her admission that she did not have any license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, the explicit certification issued on January 10, 2001 by Atty. Adonis Peralta, the DOLE District Officer in Dagupan City, attesting that the accused did not possess any permit to recruit workers for overseas employment in Pangasinan, including the cities of Dagupan, San Carlos, Urdaneta and Alaminos, confirmed her lack of the license or authority required by law.[5] Our review shows that the State competently established that the accused, despite having no license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, had represented to the complainants that she could secure their employment in Taiwan either as factory workers or as computer operators at a monthly salary of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/38252 3/7