Elmer Ramos for Taiwan was to receive his placement fee of P20,000.00. Hence, the appellant avers, she cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. If, at all, she can be held liable only with respect to the employment applications of Janer and Farol. Thus, according to the appellant, the trial court erred in sentencing her to life imprisonment. The appeal has no merit. Under Section 6 (m) of Rep. Act No. 8042,7 illegal recruitment may be committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder of authority, licensee or holder of authority, thus: (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault....8 Under the last paragraph of the said section, those criminally liable are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of a juridical person, the officers having control, management or direction of the business shall be criminally liable. In this case, the appellant, as shown by the records of the POEA, was both the APSC Vice-President-Treasurer and the Assistant General Manager. She was a high corporate officer who had direct participation in the management, administration, direction and control of the business of the corporation. As the trial court aptly declared in its decision: Again, no weight can be given to the contention of the accused. The terms "control, management or direction" used in the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 broadly cover all phases of business operation. They include the aspects of administration, marketing and finances, among others. From the records of the POEA, the accused appears as the Vice President (V.P.)/Treasurer of the Alvis Placement Service Corporation (Exhibit A). Moreover, in the promissory note dated April 30, 1998 (Exhibit K), which the accused issued to Elmer Janer, she designated her position in the said corporation as its "Asst. General Manager" (Exhibit K-1). Undoubtedly, the positions of vice-president, treasurer, and assistant general manager are high ranking corporate positions in any corporate body. These positions invest on the incumbent the authority of managing, controlling and directing the corporate affairs. The claim of the accused that her designation in the certification of the POEA (Exhibit A) as the vice-president of Alvis Placement Service Corporation has surprised her because, according to her, the vice-president was Vicente So Yan Han (TSN, Mar. 13, 2000, pp. 16-17), hardly inspires belief. If this were true, she would have no difficulty in securing from the POEA an authenticated copy of the list of all officials of the corporation which they were required to file with the said Office. For no stated reason, however, the defense omitted to secure such list and submit it to this Court. At any rate, the accused has expressly admitted in the course of her testimony that she was at the time the Treasurer of their recruitment agency. As such she was in charge of the management and control of the financial affairs and resources of the corporation. She was in charge of collecting all its receivables, safely keeping them, and disbursing them. She testified that it was part of her duties to receive and collect the monies paid by applicants (TSN, Mar. 13, 2000, p. 5). Her disbursing authority has been clearly demonstrated by her co-signing the checks Exhibits D-2 and G.9 The appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment as a principal by direct participation, having dealt directly with the private complainants. In fact, she received their placement fees and even signed, in her capacity as the Assistant General Manager of the APSC, the promissory note on May 6, 1998 in favor of private complainant Elmer Janer, obliging the APSC to pay to him the amount of P75,000.00. However, despite the private complainants' demands, their placement fees were not reimbursed in full. In People vs. Cabais,10 we held thus: Accused-appellant contends that she was not involved in recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment agency. 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. Recruitment is "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…11 In this case, the overwhelming evidence on record indubitably shows that the appellant engaged in illegal recruitment. As aptly ruled by the trial court: The first line of defense invoked by the accused to exonerate herself of the criminal charge is clearly and conclusively without merit. There is no dispute about the fact that the three complainants engaged (sic) the Alvis Placement Service Corporation, a recruitment agency duly authorized by the POEA wherein the accused was one of its top officers, to deploy them as factory workers in Taiwan. Admittedly, they incurred expenses, designated as placement fees, in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of their de[pl]oyment. Elmer Janer paid to the accused, who received the payment, the total amount of P75,000.00 for his placement fee (Exhibit J; TSN, Sept. 7, 1999, pp. 6-8). Eric Farol paid also to the accused a similar amount for the same purpose (Exhibit E; TSN, Sept. 20, 1999, pp. 5-8). Elmer Ramos paid to the agency the sum of P70,000.00 of which P20,000.00 was received by the accused, and the balance of P50,000.00 was received by Vicente So Yan Han (Exhibit F; TSN, Sept. 27, 1999, pp. 10-18). In the course of her testimony, the accused admitted that she received these payments by the complainants of their placement fees. However, the expected deployment of the complainants as factory workers in Taiwan, or even elsewhere, did not take place, without any fault on their part. There is absolutely no evidence reflecting that the failure to deploy them was imputable to their faults.