5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the instant case, all the foregoing elements are present. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, that petitioner and her co-accused misrepresented and falsely pretended that they had the capacity to deploy the private complainants for employment either in South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Canada. The misrepresentation was made prior to private complainants' payment of placement fees. It was the misrepresentation and false pretenses made by petitioner and her co-accused that induced the private complainants to part with their money. As a result of such false pretenses and misrepresentations, the private complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the various amounts of money they paid were never recovered. Petitioner argues that she could not be held liable because she was not privy nor was she aware of the recruitment activities done by her co-accused. Petitioner avers that when her co-accused received several amounts of money from the private complainants, she acted in her personal capacity and for her own benefit without the knowledge and consent of petitioner. The Court is not persuaded. As owner and general manager, petitioner was at the forefront of the recruitment activities of Suliman International. Undoubtedly, she has control, management or direction of the business of the said company. Petitioner's denial is an intrinsically weak defense, especially in the face of positive assertions made by the private complainants who had no ill motive to falsely testify against her. Indeed, of marked relevance is the absence of any showing that the private complainants had any ill motive against petitioner other than to bring her to the bar of justice to answer for the crime of illegal recruitment. Besides, for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings would certainly be against human nature and experience.[26] Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[27] In any case, petitioner cannot deny participation in the recruitment of the private complainants because the prosecution has established that petitioner was the one who offered the private complainants an alleged alternative employment in Ireland when their original deployment did not materialize. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated July 21, 2009 and January 8, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30693, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Del Castillo,* Villarama, Jr., and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. December 4, 2014 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317 8/11