6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly demonstrate to our satisfaction that the CA had overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance that, if considered, would change the outcome. Alas, she did not do so. Nor should we pay heed to the contention of the accused that the version of the State weakened because only four out of the nine named complainants had actually testified in court against her. That contention ignores that in judicial adjudications, courts do not count but weigh witnesses; thus, quality of witnesses, not their quantity, is considered. [13] Finally, the failure of the State to present receipts proving that the payments by the complainants was in consideration of their recruitment to Taiwan does not negate the guilt of the accused. This argument is not novel and unprecedented, for the Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. According to People v. Pabalan: [14] xxx the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in order to prove the existence of recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses. [15] Consequently, as long as the State established through credible testimonial evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal recruitment, her conviction was justified. [16] That is what we find herein On the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale, Article 39 of the Labor Code relevantly states: Article 39. Penalties. - (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein; xxx Both lower courts correctly found that the accused's acts fell squarely under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code due to the number of her victims being at least four. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P100,000.00 as prescribed under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code was proper. WHEREFORE, the Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/38252 5/7