Laurente, her co-accused, was never mentioned by complainants either at the POEA or the DOJ. It should be noted that the records showed that complainant Green linked Ana Laurente with Librero's recruiting activities. He testified that accused-appellant brought him over to Laurente's office where he was given a receipt signed by Laurente.[39] Moreover, the settled rule is that the determination of who should be criminally charged in court is essentially an executive function, not a judicial one. As the officer authorized to direct and control the prosecution of all criminal actions, the prosecutor is tasked to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.[40] Contrarily, accused-appellant in her second, third, fifth and sixth assigned errors insists that she was only a mere employee of Ana Laurente. As such, she should be acquitted on the theory that as an employee she need not secure a license, did not personally profit from the undertaking, and had no knowledge of the illegality of their recruitment activities. That accused-appellant was a mere employee of her co-accused Ana Laurente is a matter of affirmative defense. Thus, it is her duty to prove, with the quantum of evidence required by law, the employment relationship between her and Laurente, the legitimacy of the operations of Laurente's agency and accused-appellant's involvement therein during the period that complainants relied on her representations.[41] But this, accusedappellant absolutely failed to do. Firstly, accused-appellant claims to be an employee of AMBERLYN under Laurente since 1 September 1996. The records of POEA however show that as of 14 February 1997 the name of Librero did not appear in the list of employees submitted by AMBERLYN.[42] The presumption then is that she was not an employee of AMBERLYN. As Edwin Cristobal of the POEA averred, all the employees, whatever be their positions in the recruitment agency, were required to be registered with the POEA. Secondly, defense witness Josephine Basco tried to impress the trial court that she saw accused-appellant working at AMBERLYN. She even testified to seeing a meeting between the two (2) on 16 January 1997 wherein Laurente was giving accusedappellant instructions.[43] Yet accused-appellant herself testified that after Laurente was arrested on 22 December 1996, she no longer saw Laurente.[44] Thirdly, assuming that Basco was telling the truth, the fact is that all the complainants testified that they all applied at Librero's KGW office.Even Green, whose receipt was signed by Laurente, applied at KGW and was brought to AMBERLYN only for the receipt signing of his first payment. Green's second payment was also made at KGW and the receipt signed by accused-appellant. Fourthly, accused-appellant did not deny that she knew the complainants. [45] What she denies, however, is that the recruitment took place at KGW. The testimonies of the complainants on the matter are affirmative in nature and sufficiently corroborative of each other to be less than credible. It is hard to imagine how eight (8) people, not knowing each other and residing in different areas far from each other, could fabricate such a detailed and almost symmetrical