People vs Reyes : 104739-44 : November 18, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Th... 7 of 11 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/104739_44.htm The trial court seriously erred in finding herein accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of violation of articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, As amended, and of estafa. The Courts Ruling The appeal is devoid of merit. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale In several cases, the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, viz.: 1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 [b] or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. 2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. 3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[14] In the case at bar, the Court is satisfied that all these three elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That appellant, along with Accused Rose Reyes and Zenaida Caures, was not authorized or licensed by the POEA to engage in recruitment activities was clearly established. Private Complainants Alvaro Monzon and Katherine Calica testified that they and the other complainants went to the POEA and learned that appellant did not have a license to recruit for overseas employment.[15] Appellant himself did not controvert this. In fact, Atty. Pablito Carpio, appellants counsel de parte during the trial,[16] stipulated the admission of the certification issued by the POEA that appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment.[17] Moreover, there are five private complainants in this case; thus, appellant is criminally liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. Appellant contends, however, that the first element of the offense was not substantiated. He argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the three [a]ccused were conspiring and confederating together and helping one another in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa.[18] Further, appellant contends that the prosecutions evidence of the fact of recruitment consisted mainly of bare testimonies of the private complainants.[19] Appellant nonetheless pleads for mercy, maintaining that [h]e himself ha[d] no idea that what he was doing was already defined under the law as illegal recruitment. x x x [T]he criminal intent wanting, [he] could have committed no crime. Appellants contentions are unnoteworthy. The testimonial evidence of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the agreement among the three accused to recruit -- without license to do so -- the five private complainants for overseas employment. Appellant, his wife (Accused Zenaida Caures) and Accused Rose Reyes informed and assured the private complainants that appellant could facilitate the processing of their papers for employment in Taipei and for the issuance of their visas.[20] Private Complainant Alvaro Monzons testimony demonstrates the active participation of appellant in the recruitment:[21] FISCAL PERALTA: 1/25/2016 12:35 AM