xxx any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contact services, promising 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 engaged in recruitment and placement. The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) The accused undertook a recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any other 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.xviii[18] As aptly observed by the trial court, all the foregoing elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in the case at bar. It elaborated that: First[ly], accused Aniceta Moreno has no license nor authority to recruit. This is shown by Exhibit A, the Certification issued by the POEA, Baguio and testified to by Jose Matias of the same office xxx. Second[ly], accused Moreno undertook acts or activities coming within the definition of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code as amended. She enlisted, canvassed, promised and recruited Virginia Bakian, Florence Juan, Josephine Sotero and Felisa Bayani and others in Baguio by representing [that] she has the capacity to recruit. She promised them work abroad or promised to deploy them for work abroad particularly in Canada or in Hong Kong for a fee. She failed ultimately to deploy complainants abroad despite their repeated follow-ups and being made to wait. Third[ly], there were at least four (4) persons individually or as a group, xxx, who were recruited by the accused. The four declared in court that they were recruited for a fee by accused, actually paid their placement fees xxx, pointed to, and positively identified, accused Moreno as the one they transacted with xxx.xix[19] In trying to exonerate herself, accused-appellant argues that it was Magdalena Bolilla who represented herself as having the capacity to deploy the complainants for overseas employment. She contends that the only promise that she made to complainants was to assist them in the processing of their tourist visa. Allegedly too, she had no criminal intent to commit estafa as she returned the fee collected to Bolilla as early as February 1993. These arguments deserve scant consideration. The findings of the trial court that it was accusedappellant who undertook the recruitment activities at bar are well supported by evidence. The testimonial evidence of the complainants, the receipt signed by accused-appellant herself, and the other corroborative evidence all support the recruitment activities of accused-appellant. Equally