4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b)[20] of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34[21] of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.[22] 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] All three elements are present in the case at bar. Inarguably, appellant Chua engaged in recruitment when she represented to private complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as factory workers upon submission of the required documents and payment of the placement fee. The four private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised them employment as factory workers in Taiwan for a fee of P80,000. More importantly, Severino Maranan the Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, presented a Certification dated December 5, 2002, issued by Director Felicitas Q. Bay, to the effect that appellant Chua is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. The Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial court and appellate court. The prosecution witnesses were positive and categorical in their testimonies that they personally met appellant and that the latter promised to send them abroad for employment. In fact, the substance of their testimonies corroborate each other on material points, such as the amount of the placement fee, the country of destination and the nature of work. Without any evidence to show that private complainants were propelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellant, we shall accord their testimonies full faith and credit. After all, the doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to the appellate court.[24] The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court’s determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence.[25] Appellant cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of Golden Gate. The provisions of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 7/14