5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The foregoing excerpts show that accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities. The acts of the accused consisting of her promise of employment to certain persons and of transporting them abroad fall squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined by law.[18] With regard to accused-appellant's claim that she did not pretend to be a licensed recruiter or owner of a licensed recruitment agency, the same is belied by the private complainants' testimony that she was personally introduced by Aviguetero to them as a recruiter with a licensed agency. And at any rate, it is not required that it be shown that such person wrongfully represented himself as a licensed recruiter.[19] Accused-appellant also faults the trial complainants' testimonies at face value. court for allegedly considering private It is a well settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and determine if they are telling the truth or not.[20] Such findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could have affected the result of the case. [21] This Court finds that the trial court did not overlook, misunderstand or misapply facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could have affected the result of the case. There is large-scale illegal recruitment if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group; its elements, therefore, are the two abovementioned plus the fact that it is committed against three or more persons. Large-scale illegal recruitment involves economic sabotage, and is penalized by Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. The accused-appellant having recruited at least three persons, giving them the impression of her ability to send workers abroad, assuring them of their employment in Malaysia, and collecting various amounts for alleged processing and placement fees without license nor authority to so recruit or offer job placements abroad, thus committed large scale illegal recruitment. The trial court also did not err in finding the accused guilty of estafa. The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another: (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant deceived the complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Malaysia for which https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52764 10/14