Emmanuel Vasquez testified that he learned from a friend that Bing Domingo was recruiting workers for Japan. Sometime in August, 1992, he went to Bing Domingos house at Lepanto Street, Sampaloc, Metro Manila. He was told by Domingo that if he could give money, he would be sent to Japan. He applied for the position of computer operator and gave Domingo the amount of P5,000. No receipt was issued to him (TSN, March 2, 1993, pp. 2-3). Sometime in September, 1992, Vasquez paid the additional amount of P8,000. Although Bing Domingo and Floro Cosa were also present, he gave the money to accused-appellant because she was the treasurer. He was then with another applicant, Josephine Reyes. A receipt was issued by accused-appellant in the name of Josephine Reyes who also gave a certain amount to accusedappellant (Ibid, pp. 4-5). Vasquez was not able to leave for Japan as promised by accused-appellant and Bing Domingo, prompting him to file a complaint with the Western Police District of Manila (Ibid, p. 6).iv[4] Against the above overwhelming evidence, the defense, in a one-paragraph narration in its Brief for the Accused-Appellant, restated the testimony of its sole witness, appellant Celia Flor Cosa herself; thus: The defense presented one witness the accused Celia Flor Cosa. She testified that during the months of August and September, 1992 she was employed by Japs International with office at Quirino Avenue, Malate, Manila. As employee her task is to record the names of the applicants of the Company and other office works assigned to her by the officers of the company like Bing Domingo or Rommy Guevarra. She also answer inquiries of the applicants and to inform them of job requirements. She also signs receipts upon the instruction of Bing Domingo, the agency secretary or Rommy Guevarra. Floro Cosa is her father and the president of the office. In receiving money, she has to turn it over to Bing Domingo or Rommy Guevarra, the vice president. The company is owned by a Japanese named Terehiko Chino and the latter is the one who appointed her to her position in the office. Bing Domingo gave her a prepared list of requirements which copy she give to the applicants. In the receipt issued by the agency her name appeared as treasurer/cashier but she is not aware of that designation. She was not receiving any salary from the company but was only given allowance the biggest is P500.00 a week (TSN, pp. 2-11, August 6, 1993).v[5] It is evident, looking at the decision of the court a quo and perusing the records, that the assessment undertaken by it of the evidence has been quite thorough. Nothing of consequence or substance has been given by accused-appellant to allow the Court to discard the evaluation made by the trial court on the testimony of the witnesses. The Court must recognize that it is the trial court, not the appellate court, which can avail itself with a good chance of observing first hand the deportment of declarants at the witness stand and the manner in which their attestations are given.vi[6] Appellant never did deny the statements attributed to her by the complainants such as in getting them to provide the requirements of their applications, accepting their application papers, receiving money by way of placement and other fees, as well as issuing receipts therefor, and assuring overseas employment for each of them.