A For processing papers and passport. Q Who told you that, Mr. Witness? A Mr. Mercado.xxxii[32] Complainants were thus positive and categorical: accused-appellant, together with his wife and sister-in-law, recruited them for work in Hong Kong and Korea. They did not just meet him in Macao because he was there buying ready-to-wear garments (RTW) which he was to sell in Manila. They were either sent there through his agents or taken there by accused-appellant himself. Indeed, complainants had no motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant. Accusedappellant admitted he knew of no reason why they should falsely accuse him of illegal recruitment. In his words: Atty. Sangalang Q Do you know of any reason why these five complainants filed a case of illegal recruitment against you instead of your wife and Toto Bellosillo? A I dont know, sir. It hardly needs to be said that against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, accused-appellants mere denials cannot prevail. Second. The defense argues that the affidavits of Antonio Peralta and Nelson Tamares show that accused-appellant had no part in the illegal recruitment of workers. This is not true. They are merely incomplete, due no doubt to the fact that they were given ex parte. Moreover, as can be seen from the testimonies of these complainants quoted earlier, accused-appellant was clearly one of those who recruited them without license. Between an affidavit and the testimony given in open court, the latter prevails because affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.xxxiii[33] The fact that it was Baby Tan and not the accused-appellant who signed the receipts is of no moment. Accused-appellant, his wife Baby Tan, and sister-in-law Quinses Bellosillo (who is also known as Toto Bellosillo) acted in concert with one another as only those in conspiracy would. What we said in People v. Alfortexxxiv[34] applies to this case: The five culprits including accused-appellant represented themselves as a group; hence, when private complainants paid the sums of money to accused-appellant, the issuance of the receipts by the other members would be entirely reasonable and proper. In fact, this delineation of their respective roles strongly shows that the group were acting in concert in the defraudation of private complainants.