license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and 2) that the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b)xvi[16] or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code as amended. And in the case of People v. Senoron, 267 SCRA 278, it was held that: It is the lack of necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. So, also, in People v. Tan Tiong Meng, 271 SCRA 125, this Court held that: xxx Accused-appellants acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing to them that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement. xxx. There is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad though without authority or license to do so. (People v. Villas, 277 SCRA 391) Accused-appellant is likewise guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale. His offense of illegal recruitment victimized three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.xvii[17] In the case of People v. Manozca, G.R. No. 109779, March 13, 1997; the Court said: Prosecution also established that the accused by using the fictitious name Nesty Santiago and Manolito Santiago and falsely pretending to possess the power and capacity to obtain and provide work for complainants in Singapore, obtained from the complainants various sums of money knowing fully well that he did not have such power or capacity in violation of Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. In Criminal Case No. 90-13964 the amount defrauded from Arnulfo Caampued by accused is P14,500.00 while in Criminal Case No. 9013963 the amount defrauded from Norlito Hular is P12,636.00 Anent the defense of denial invoked by the accused the trial court erred not in rejecting the same. In the case of People v. Magallano, 266 SCRA 305, the Court rationalized: Courts have generally viewed with disfavor the defense of denial on account of its aridity and the facility with which an accused could concoct the same to suit his defense. All things studiedly viewed in proper perspective, the mind of the court can rest easy on finding of guilt of appellant. As regards the imposable penalty for the crimes of appellant; Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, provides: Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. The penalty of Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in