6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly appellant for the illegal recruitment in large scale and properly imposed the penalty provided by law. Ruling of the Court The appeal lacks merit. The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b)[9] of the Labor Code, or in any prohibited activities listed under Article 34[10] of the Labor Code; (2) that she had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment with respect to the requirement to secure a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers;[11] and (3) that she committed the unlawful acts against three or more persons.[12] In the assailed judgment, the CA affirmed the findings of facts of the RTC, observing that: First. DELIA made misrepresentations pertaining to her capacity to send workers abroad for employment, for which reason JOEL, MARVIN, REYNALDO, JR. and ROLLY, parted with their money believing that the same will be utilized to process their papers. Second. As testified to by an employee of the DOLE, one Remedios Mercado, DELIA had no authority to conduct any recruitment activity for overseas employment in the province of Pangasinan, including the cities of Dagupan, San Carlos and Urdaneta. Third. DELIA recruited for overseas employment, JOEL, MARVIN, REYNALDO, JR., and ROLLY. Verily, DELIA is culpable for the crime of large scale illegal recruitment, having promised overseas employment to JOEL, MARVIN, REYNALDO, JR. and ROLLY as apple pickers in Israel. Her actions in requiring them to undergo medical examinations, opening bank accounts, procurement of passports and such other documents necessary for travel abroad, showed her alleged capacity to recruit private complainants for foreign employment when in truth she had no authority to do so. It must also be stressed that the failure of private complainants to show the covering receipts to prove payment to DELIA will not hinder her conviction for the crimes committed since the absence of receipts to evidence payment to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's cause. Moreover, it is worthy to note that LOMBOY was never mentioned during the presentation of the prosecution's evidence either during the direct or crossexamination of its witnesses. When JOEL and MARVIN testified, only the name of Atty. Reynaldo Pangan was mentioned as the person before whom their respective affidavits were executed while the others did not mention any other names specifically that of LOMBOY. Curiously, not one of the private complainants were asked regarding their alleged connection to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63739 4/10