The Court finds unacceptable accused-appellants claim that the complainants are "barking at the wrong tree" and that they only turned their ire on her because the alleged real culprit, Julie Micua, was nowhere to be found.18[18] Complainants would not run after her if she, too, were really a victim. The lame defense consisting of accusedappellants bare denial cannot overcome the prosecutions positive evidence proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, compared to accused-appellants evidence, which is mainly one of denial, the prosecution presented evidence showing her positive acts of complicity with Julie Micua in recruiting complainants. The accordance of greater probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is negative in character is a time-honored principle. Hence, the negative assertions of accusedappellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainants.19[19] The prosecution undoubtedly proved that accused-appellant, without license or authority, engaged in recruitment and placement activities. This was done in collaboration with Julie Micua, when they promised complainants employment in Hongkong. Art. 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, 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." In People v. Agustin,20[20] therein appellant argued that she could not be convicted of illegal recruitment because in introducing the complainants to the alleged recruiters, she merely acted "out of the goodness of her heart." In resolving said case, the Court ruled: Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency. 18[18] TSN, November 18, 1992, p. 5. 19[19] People vs. Padre-e, 319 Phil 545, 550 (1995) 20[20] 317 Phil. 897 (1995)