6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority: xxxx (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[44] All eight private complainants herein consistently declared that Ochoa offered and promised them employment overseas. Ochoa required private complainants to submit their bio-data, birth certificates, and passports, which private complainants did. Private complainants also gave various amounts to Ochoa as payment for placement and medical fees as evidenced by the receipts Ochoa issued to Gubat,[45] Cesar,[46] and Agustin.[47] Despite private complainants' compliance with all the requirements Ochoa specified, they were not able to leave for work abroad. Private complainants pleaded that Ochoa return their hard-earned money, but Ochoa failed to do so. Ochoa contends that Exhibit "A," the POEA certification - which states that Ochoa, in her personal capacity, is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment - was already rejected by the RTC during the hearings on bail for being hearsay, and should not have been admitted by the RTC after the trial on the merits of the criminal cases. Inadmissible evidence during bail hearings do not become admissible evidence after formal offer. Without the POEA certification, the prosecution had no proof that Ochoa is unlicensed to recruit and, thus, she should be acquitted. Ochoa's contention is without merit. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26427 12/23