G.R. No. 175229 10 of 14 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/175229.htm 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. Corollarily, Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code enumerates the acts which constitute recruitment and placement: (b) Recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract 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. Here, we are convinced that the three elements were sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt. First, accused-appellants, undoubtedly, did not have any license to recruit persons for overseas work. This is substantiated by the POEA, Licensing Branch which issued a Certification [37] to this effect and the testimony of an employee of the POEA, Corazon [38] Cristobal. Second, accused-appellants engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering overseas employment for a fee. This is supported by the testimonies of the private complainants, [39] particularly Devanadera who categorically testified that accused-appellants promised private complainants employment and assured them of placement overseas. Magnaye and Agramon also corroborated the testimony of Devanadera. [40] Their narration undoubtedly established that accused-appellants promised them employment in Italy as factory workers and they (accused-appellants) asked money from them (private complainants) to allegedly process their papers and visas. Private complainants were deceived as they relied on accused-appellants misrepresentation and scheme that caused them to entrust their money to them in exchange of what they later discovered was a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad. Accused-appellants mere denials, as well as their self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies, cannot stand against the straightforward testimonies of private complainants who 1/25/2016 5:55 AM