6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In like manner, the second and third elements also obtain in this case. On separate occasions and under different premises, appellant met with and herself recruited the private complainants, six (6) in number, giving them the impression that she had the capability to facilitate applications for employment as factory workers in Japan. All these complainants testified that appellant had promised them employment for a fee amounting to P2(),000.00. Their testimonies corroborate each other on material points, such as the amount exacted by appellant as placement fee, the country of destination, the training that they had to undergo to qualify for employment and the submission of documentary requirements needed for the same. The private complainants were positive and categorical in testifying that they personally met the appellant and that she asked for, among others, the payment of placement fees in consideration for the promised employment in Japan.[15] Accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution. As is well-settled in this jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.[16] Based on the factual findings of the RTC, the combined and corroborative testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution show that: it was appellant herself who informed them of the existence of the job vacancies in Japan and of the requirements needed for the processing of their applications. It was properly established that it was accused-appellant who accompanied the private complainants to undergo training and seminar conducted by a person who represented himself as connected with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Evidence was also presented that the private complainants, relying completely on accused-appellant's representations, entrusted their money to her. Finally, since there were six (6) victims, the RTC therefore did not commit any error in convicting accused-appellant of the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale. This Court is also in agreement with the ruling of the CA that accused-appellant is guilty of six (6) counts of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.[17] The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[18] As aptly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, accusedappellant defrauded the private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them for overseas employment in Japan and because of such assurances, private complainants each parted with P20,000.00 in exchange for said promise of future work abroad. Still, accused-appellant's promise never materialized, thus, private complainants suffered damages to the extent of the sum of money that they had delivered to accused-appellant. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61569 7/10