People vs Luto : 113344 : July 28, 1997 : J. Vitug : First Division 4 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/113344.htm whether for profit or not; Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement." That appellant did participate in the illegal recruitment activities of Santos and Convucar is sufficiently shown on record. Marina Parto testified: "Q: What did you do Madam witness, after all these transactions? After you have given the money to Nenita Convucar, what happened next? "A: I was not able to leave for abroad so I asked for the refund of my money but nothing happened. "Q: To whom did you ask for refund? "A: Atanacio Luto and Nenita Convucar, and Paco Sta. Maria. "Q: Why did you not ask Convucar to refund you the amount of P10,000.00? "A: Nenita Convucar told me that that amount of P8,000.00 was given to Atanacio Luto while the P2,000.00 was with Paco Santos Sta. Maria. "Q: Do you have that receipt that these amounts you have given to accused Luto and Santos? "A: That he received? Nenita Convucar was the one who received. "Q: According to you Nenita Convucar gave the money to Luto and Santos? "A: When I gave the P2,000.00 it was directly to Paco Santos Sta. Maria and the P8,000.00, Nenita told me that the P8,000.00 was given to Atanacio Luto and when I talked to Atanacio Luto he told me `yes, she gave the P8,000.00 to him (sic). "Q: Did you not ask any receipt that Luto received the said amount? "A: No, sir, because I was not the one who gave to him. It was Nenita Convucar who gave that amount. ATTY. GURAY "Q: Why did you not ask Nenita Convucar whether he issued a receipt? "A: Because Luto told me that he received that amount to (sic) Nenita Convucar and I told him to refund the money. And he told yes, I will refund the money." (Underscoring supplied.)[12] Another complainant, Rebecca Estrella, declared that it was appellant and Convucar who received her application for overseas employment. It was also appellant who demanded that she should "produce" the placement fee of P5,000.00. She thus handed over P1,500.00 to appellant and the remaining amount of P3,500.00 to Convucar.[13] A third witness, Teodora Gutierrez, identified Santos to be the person with whom she discussed the prospect of her employment abroad and to whom she had paid, upon demand, the sum of P5,000.00 as processing fee and another P7,000.00 for the plane fare. She, however, declared not to have seen appellant at the time. Appellant himself conducted his own interviews of applicants.[14] He, indeed, admitted having also acted as a witness in at least ten duly notarized labor recruitment documents. The trial court could not have erred in thus refusing to believe appellants asseveration, in order to justify his presence in the premises, that he merely used the house of Convucar as an office for his buy and sell business and as a "communication center" for his own activities. The defense of denial, in any case, cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the fact asserted easily overrides negative testimony.[15] Regrettably, the Court would have to discard the factual settings of this case and settled legal principles if it were to accept the recommendation of the Solicitor General[16] that, since only two applicants for employment abroad were able to so pinpoint Luto as an illegal recruiter, 1/24/2016 9:43 PM