account of their respective unpleasant experiences with accused-appellant.[46] More so, when we bear in mind that accused-appellant has denied ever knowing the complainants before. In People v. Villas[47]we observed that it was contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime that would take the latter's liberty and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and vindicate the frustration of their dreams to work abroad. It is in this light that we find any inconsistencies that accused-appellant harps on in the testimonies of the complainants to be inconsequential. What is important is that they have positively identified accused-appellant as their illegal recruiter.[48] From the foregoing, the question that must be asked is: If accused-appellant indeed worked for Laurente under AMBERLYN, why was accused-appellant usually seen at work at the KGW office? It could only mean that the arrangement between Laurente and accused-appellant, whatever it may be, was not officially acknowledged or sanctioned by AMBERLYN. Hence, accused-appellant may not be allowed to take refuge behind AMBERLYN's mantle. What is clear from the evidence on record is that accused-appellant was categorically named by the complainants as their recruiter. She was the one pointed to by the complainants as representing herself to have the capacity to send them overseas with cushy jobs waiting for them.She was the one who received their payments and issued receipts. She informed them of the requirements for deployment abroad. She named KGW as her office and worked in an office under the name of KGW. Yet at the time that she was working ostensibly for KGW she was not in the list of its employees nor was KGW licensed or existing because it was delisted from the roster of POEA licensed agencies on 16 August 1996.[49] Thus, the aforementioned facts show that accused-appellant was neither an employee of AMBERLYN nor of KGW. Not being an employee of registered recruiting agencies, accused-appellant necessarily had no license to recruit complainants, hence, her promises of employment abroad for a fee to the eight (8) complainants were tainted with the presumption of being within the purview of "illegal recruitment" in large scale under Sec. 6 of RA 8042 - Sec.6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority contemplated under Art. 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines; Provided, that any such nonlicensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged x x x x Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.