A. She was not at the office so she called up by phone and told us to give the money, Sir. Q. And to whom did to give the money? A. Beth Corpuz, Sir.[16] From the foregoing testimony, it is clear that all appellant did was receive the processing fees upon instruction of Mrs. Reyes. She neither convinced the private complainants to give their money nor promised them employment abroad. Moreover, as stated in the last sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable. In the case at bar, we have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found that the prosecution failed to establish that appellant, as secretary, had control, management or direction of the recruitment agency. Appellant started her employment with the agency on May 1, 1998 and she was tasked to hold and document employment contracts from the foreign employers.[17] She did not entertain applicants and she had no discretion over how the business was managed.[18] The trial courts finding that appellant, being the secretary of the agency, had control over its business, is not only non sequitur but has no evidentiary basis. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter. The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.[19] Anent the issue of whether or not appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged, we find that she did not. In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged.[20] Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, i.e., he