6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly NT$45,000.00 each; and that the complainants had relied on her representation and given her the amounts she had demanded in the expectation of their placement. We note that in order to make her representation more convincing, she had also told the complainants about her being related to the Philippine Ambassador to Taiwan, as well as to President Ramos and President Estrada. The accused admitted having received various sums of money from the complainants, who had given the sums either in cash or by depositing in the bank account of her husband, but denied that such sums were in consideration of their recruitment, claiming instead that the sums were reimbursements for the expenses incurred during the trips to Cebu City, Iligan City, Ozamis City and Cagayan de Oro City in the company of the complainants. [6] She insisted that the complainants, resenting her demand for reimbursements, then brought the charge for illegal recruitment against her to get even. The CA disbelieved her denial, however, and pointed out that: Although private complainants do not deny that they did not spend a single centavo for all the expenses they have incurred during such trips, it appears from their combined testimonies that they were led to believe that the payments they have made were in consideration of their application to work in Taiwan and not for their outings. [7] We uphold the CA's appreciation of the situation. The accused's allegation about this accusation emanating from the complainants' resentment could only be bereft of substance. For one, the fact that, as the RTC found, two of the complainants (i.e., Ma. Corazon A. Garcia and Jocelyn Flores) did not even join the trips [8] entirely belied the allegation. Besides, although the complainants who had joined her in the trips had admittedly spent not a single centavo for the trips, their testimonies unerringly pointed nonetheless to the singular conclusion that she had led them to believe that what they were paying for was their promised overseas employment, not the trips. Such testimonies, which positively and unequivocally described her illegal activities of recruitment, prevailed over her denial, which was nothing but self-serving negative evidence. [9] Indeed, it was further shown that the accused had communicated to the complainants the dates of their departure for Taiwan after receiving the various sums she had demanded, which was further proof of her promise to deploy them in Taiwan. The urging of the accused that the Court should review her case due to the conflicting versions of the parties is unwarranted. The determination of which of the different versions was to be believed is fundamentally an issue of credibility whose resolution belonged to the domain of the trial judge who had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses at the time of their testimony. [10] The Court naturally accords great respect to the trial judge's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because the trial judge was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies by reason of his unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. [11] With more reason do we hold so herein, for the CA, as the reviewing tribunal, affirmed the RTC, as the trial court. [12] The accused bore the ensuing obligation to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/38252 4/7