People vs Melgar-Mercader : 118815 : August 18, 1997 : J. Bellosillo :... 3 of 4 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/118815.htm another and residing in different areas far from each other, could concoct such a detailed account of their respective unpleasant experiences with the appellant. Verily, it is highly improbable if not downright implausible. Besides, no ill motive has been attributed to the four (4) complainants which could have impelled them to impute to appellant a crime so grave as illegal recruitment in large scale. Appellant's denial of her signatures appearing on the receipts she issued to the four (4) complainants representing the amounts for the processing of their papers cannot be sustained. When cross-examined by the prosecutor on her signatures, appellant could not point to any difference between her signatures on the records and her signatures on the receipts she gave the complaining witnesses. Appellant testified thus Q: Now, these Exhibits A, C, E and I were shown to you and you denied that the signatures which read Anita Melgar which appear that the signatures are yours, is it not? A: I did not sign them. Q: Will you agree with me that you affixed your signature in this this case which appear on the record x x x ? A: Yes ma'am, I have my signatures affixed in this record. Q: Your signatures appeared in the minutes dated May 3, 1994 and also in the minutes dated May 24, 1994 as well as to (sic) the other minutes attached to the record, you will agree that these are your signatures? A: Yes ma'am, they are my signatures. Q: Now, will you go over the signatures on the exhibits which I mentioned earlier and compare with your signatures in the minutes attached to the record of this case? Will you see if there is any difference among the signatures on exhibits presented by the prosecution and the signatures appearing on the records of this case? A: There is a difference. Q: What is that difference that you noticed? A: Still I did not sign this maam in the exhibits (underscoring supplied).[12] Denial is the only defense that appellant can come up with. But, as against the positive testimonies of the four (4) complainants that the receipts were signed by appellant in their presence, the denial cannot save her from her quagmire. Consequently, there is no doubt as to appellant's guilt. All the essential elements of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale have been established beyond reasonable doubt: (a) The accused engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers as defined in Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code; (b) The accused did not comply with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and, (c) The accused committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[13] Illegal recruitment carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine which varies by degrees in accordance with the enumeration in Art. 39 of the Labor Code. In the instant case, since appellant was convicted of illegally recruiting at least four (4) persons, her crime should be classified as having been committed in large scale.[14] Thus it is considered as involving economic sabotage that carries with it a fine of P100,000.00 which the trial court however failed to impose on appellant. In addition, appellant must indemnify complainants their processing fees or the unrefunded portions thereof.[15] WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding accused-appellant ANITA MELGARMERCADER y TONGCO guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale defined and penalized 1/24/2016 11:13 PM