likewise actively involved in the business, turning it into a kind of family affair. However, it was only Remedios who stood trial as Reynaldo and Rowena remained at large. To show that the accused-appellant had no authority whatsoever to recruit workers for jobs abroad, the prosecution presented a certificationix[9] from the Chief of Licensing of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration showing that Remedios Enriquez is not licensed to engage in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment.x[10] In her defense, Remedios claimed that it was her common-law husband Reynaldo who was engaged in the business and that she only acted as his secretary when she dealt with the complainants. She testified that about a year before she was arrested and charged for illegal recruitment, her estranged common-law husband Reynaldo sought a reconciliation after they had been living apart for seventeen years. Having agreed to take him back, she allowed him to establish his recruitment office at her residence in Libertad which was owned by her parents.xi[11] Remedios claimed that she herself and her children applied for employment in Taiwan through Reynaldo. As to her participation in Reynaldos recruitment activities, she maintained that she merely helped him in the office for three months while he was still looking for a secretary. Part of her duties then was to collect the documents submitted by the applicants and receive the money they paid as placement fees. Remedios likewise presented photocopies of letters addressed to her common-law husband Reynaldo written on stationery with the letterhead of Jet Hotel and Taiwan Restaurant Inc.xii[12] and J Manila Brunei Personnel Management Services Internationalxiii[13] to prove that it was, in fact, Reynaldo who was engaged in recruitment activities.xiv[14] To bolster Remedioss version of the facts, another defense witness, Eduardo Ferrer, was presented to prove that accused-appellant was herself an applicant for overseas employment and that she had nothing to do with the illegal recruitment activities of her common-law husband. As earlier stated, the trial court did not give credence to the evidence presented by the defense and found Remedios guilty as charged. Hence, this appeal. We affirm the conviction. Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as xxx 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 Article 38, par. (a), of the same Code, any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code shall be deemed illegal and punishable