7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority is liable for Illegal Recruitment when the following elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042). In the case of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[23] Moreover, "[t]o prove [I]llegal [R]ecruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that [he or she] had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in [such] a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end."[24] All the elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale are present in the instant case. In this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant had indeed engaged in Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. First, appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Among the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution is a POEA Certification[25] dated May 31, 2013, which states that appellant is "not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment."[26] Significantly, appellant has not negated nor denied the contents of the Certification issued by the POEA. Second, three (3) private complainants, namely, Llave, Concrenio, and Sta. Maria, all positively identified appellant as the person who promised them overseas employment in Canada or the USA in various capacities, which gave them the distinct impression that appellant had the ability to facilitate their applications and, eventually, deploy them for employment abroad. It bears noting that all these complainants corroborated each other on materials points, particularly that - (1) they were made to believe that appellant was capable of securing them of work abroad; (2) he exacted from them various sums of money as placement fees; (3) he required them to submit various documents for the processing of their visas with the Unites States Embassy; (4) he demanded an additional amount of P1,500.00 from each of the applicants as notarization fee for their papers submitted to the United States Embassy; and (5) he failed to secure overseas employment for them as promised. Appellant attacks the credibility and veracity of their accounts for being faulty and inconsistent. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66798 7/12