The approval may be issued upon submission of or compliance with the following requirements: a. Proposed appointment or Special Power of Attorney; b. Clearances of the proposed representative or agent from NBI; c. A sworn or verified statement by the designating or appointing person or company assuming full responsibility for all the acts of the agent or representative done in connection with the recruitment and placement of workers. Approval by the Administration of the appointment or designation does not authorize the agent or representative to establish a branch or extension office of the licensed agency represented. Any revocation or amendment in the appointment should be communicated to the administration. Otherwise, the designation or appointment shall be deemed as not revoked or amended. Section 1, Rule X of the same Book, in turn, provides that "recruitment and placement activities of agents or representatives appointed by a licensee, whose appointments were not authorized by the Administration shall likewise constitute illegal recruitment." The Certification from the POEA that it "has not received nor acknowledged the representation of Ms. Gutierrez" establishes that the appointment of appellant by Serafudin as a representative or agent was not authorized by the POEA. It may be true that the POEA received from Serafudin a revocation of appellant's appointment, but still is of no consequence since Serafudin in the first place did not submit her appointment to the POEA, and so the POEA has nothing to approve. As found by the trial court83 the evidence on record, notably appellant's own version, indicates that she was running her own labor recruitment business. Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA.84 Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se.85 Good faith is not a defense. That appellant engaged in recruitment and placement is beyond dispute. The complaining witnesses categorically testified that the accused promised them on several occasions that they would be leaving for work abroad. Appellant received complainants' money and documents, a fact that the complainants themselves witnessed and which the accused acknowledged when she returned the same to them after the filing of the case against her. Appellant even brought complainant Rosalyn Sumayo to the airport three times, raising her expectations, but leaving her hanging in mid-air. The accused even had the audacity to demand cancellation fees from the complainants when they asked for a refund. The Affidavits of Desistance executed by two of the complainants deserve little weight. The Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought. As held in the case ofPeople v. Ubina,86 "it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their mind for one reason or another; for such rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses." 87 As appellant committed illegal recruitment against three or more persons, she is liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellant Flor Gutierrez y Timod guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and sentencing her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Judge Priscilla C. Mijares presiding. 2 Records, p. 2. 3 TSN, May 12, 1995, p. 4. 4 Id., p. 5. 5 Id., p. 6.