6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly they did not represent themselves to the latter as having the capability to deploy workers overseas;[9] that they did not commit any act of fraudulent misrepresentations essential in the estafa for which they were convicted; and that they simply assisted in processing the papers of the latter to help them realize their desire to work abroad.[10] Did the CA correctly affirm the convictions of the accused-appellants for illegal recruitment in large scale and for three counts of estafa? Ruling of the Court The appeal lacks merit. We find no reason to disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions by the CA affirming the factual findings of the RTC, to wit: To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) 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 same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. xxxx In the case at bench, all three (3) elements were established during trial. First, it was proved by private complaints that accused spouses were not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment activities. This fact was substantiated by POEA's Certifications and as testified to by the Officer-inCharge of the POEA who issued the same. Second, private complainants testified and proved that indeed accused spouses undertook acts constituting recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. They testified that they were induced, offered and promised by accused spouses employment in Macau, China for two (2) years for a fee. They were made to believe that accused spouses were authorized to hire them and capable of sending them to Macau for work with higher pays. They paid accused spouses for documentation and processing fees, yet, they were unable to go abroad. These testimonies, as well as the documentary evidence they submitted consisting of the receipts issued to them by accused spouses, all proved that the latter were engaged in recruitment and placement activities. And third, there are five (5) complainants against whom accused spouses are alleged to have recruited. Moreover, the defense proffered by accused spouses consisted merely of alibi and denial. It is however noteworthy to state that denial, like alibi, is elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62691 10/16