5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SO ORDERED.[9] Decision of the CA Inovero appealed, contending that: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH [HER] GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[10] On August 26, 2010, the CA affirmed the conviction, viz: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The January 14, 2008 Decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[11] Issue In this appeal, Inovero insists that the CA erred in affirming her conviction by the RTC because she had not been an employee of Harvel at any time; that she could be faulted only for her association with the supposed illegal recruiters; that in all stages of the complainants’ recruitment for overseas employment by Harvel, they had transacted only and directly with Diala; and that the certification from the POEA to the effect she was not a licensed recruiter was not a positive proof that she engaged in illegal recruitment. Ruling of the Court The appeal lacks merit. In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the entire findings of fact of the RTC, stating: The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the same Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment with respect to the requirement to secure a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) that the accused committed the unlawful acts against 3 or more persons. In simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57144 5/12