5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. It is necessary that the prosecution prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13 (b) of the labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[23] In this case, appellant engaged in recruitment when she represented herself to be capable of deploying workers to South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees. As appellant claimed to be the liaison officer of Llanesa Consultancy Services, the victims believed that she indeed had the capability to deploy them abroad. All the witnesses and the supposed victims identified appellant as the one who made such representation and received the payments they made evidenced by the petty cash vouchers and receipts she signed. Moreover, appellant was caught in an entrapment operation when she received the amount demanded allegedly as additional requirement before they can be deployed abroad. It was, likewise, certified to by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Licensing Division that neither appellant nor Llanesa Consultancy Services were licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. It is also clear from the evidence presented that the crime of illegal recruitment was committed by appellant against five persons. Clearly, we find no reason to disturb the RTC’s findings as affirmed by the CA, that appellant committed the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. We likewise agree with the appellate court that appellant may also be held liable for estafa. The very same evidence proving appellant’s criminal liability for illegal recruitment also established her criminal liability for estafa.[24] The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[25] In this case, as testified to by the victims/witnesses, appellant defrauded the victims by making them believe that she has the capacity to deploy them to South Korea as workers, even as she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. Because of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57038 6/11