by substantial evidence are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. So also, wellestablished is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.iv[4] Moreover, well entrenched is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, which applies with greater force to the Petition under consideration because the factual findings by the Court of Appeals are in full agreement with what the trial court found. It bears stressing that by opting not to present any controverting evidence during the trial, petitioner waived her right to come forward with evidence for the defense and foreclosed her right to interpose any objection to the prosecutions evidence upon appeal x x x.v[5] Similarly untenable is petitioners stance that she is not an illegal recruiter, arguing that the documents introduced to substantiate her recruitment activities were neither identified nor marked by the prosecution. In People vs. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677, 691, the Court enumerated the elements of illegal recruitment to be as follows: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities (or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended); and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. In affirming the findings arrived at by the court a quo, the Court of Appeals ratiocinated: The prosecutions evidence shows that appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority as required by law. Proof of this is a certification (Exh. C) dated 18 August 1993 issued by the POEA-REU, Baguio City, which reads: CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the name BRIDGETTE BUNEG (sic) per existing and available records from this Office is not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or any part of the region. When the trial prosecutor was about to present the signatory of the above document, the defense readily admitted its authenticity (TSN, 03 March 1994, p. 17). Appellant expressly waived her right to rebut this allegation and in effect judicially admitted she was not a licensee or holder of authority. Consequently, such evidence can be validly taken against her. In this context, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority has been defined in People vs. Diaz, (supra)vi[6] as: