Patricio Garin Jr. knew Nenita as a recruiter of workers for Taiwan. He was recommended to her by Engr. Toledo. In August 1992 Patricio went to the office of Nenita at the Amparo Bldg. to apply for employment abroad. He first talked to Wilfredo then to Abelardo and Nenita. She told him to submit his passport, clearances from the Mayor, NBI, police and barangay, result of physical and medical examination, and to pay the placement fee of P10,000.00. He could only give her a down payment of P4,500.00.xiii[13] After submitting all the requirements she told him that once his papers were processed, he would leave last week of October 1992. Sometime in September 1992 he followed up his application but Nenita informed him that her husband was still in Taiwan. She then advised Patricio to take care of himself. By the end of October he returned to her office but was not able to talk to her. It was Wilfredo who told him that his departure had been postponed. He kept on following up his application until he learned that Abelardo had died. He was not able to talk to Nenita and Wilfredo because they were not anymore in the office. They had disappeared. The Chief of the Licensing Branch of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration issued a certificationxiv[14] that "Nenita Juego and Wilfredo Gaerlan in their personal capacities x x x is (sic) neither licensed nor authorized by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment." Nenita T. Juego, in this appeal, insists that she has nothing to do with the recruitment activities of her deceased husband. Had she interfered therewith she would have signed the receipts in her own name. We are not persuaded. Article 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code defines recruitment as referring to x x x any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Under Art. 38, par. (a), of the same Code, any recruitment activity including the prohibited practices enumerated in Art. 34, becomes illegal when undertaken by non-licensees or nonholders of authority. As stated by the trial court, based on People v. Naparan Jr.,xv[15] illegal recruitment is committed when these requisites concur: (a) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and, (b) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning given to recruitment and placement by the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code. The certification issued by the POEA clearly showed that appellant did not possess the requisite license or authority. And despite the absence thereof she engaged in recruitment activities as overwhelmingly substantiated by the prosecution witnesses. The complainants positively identified appellant as their recruiter for employment abroad, bringing into play the same modus operandi for all. They were one in stating that appellant