accused-appellants arrest was defective, such is deemed cured upon her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.15[15] It should be stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objections based on this ground are waived, the fact that the arrest was illegal is not sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment. The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the culpability of the accused.16[16] The second and third assigned errors regarding accused-appellants culpability for the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale are closely interrelated, hence, shall be discussed jointly. These alleged errors boil down to the issue of credibility. All the complainants are one in saying that accused-appellant made representations that she knew someone who could help them secure employment in Hongkong. Relying on these representations, they applied for placement for employment abroad and paid various sums of money therefor. Unfortunately, accused-appellant failed to comply with her promise of employment or restitute the amounts she received from them. For her part, accused-appellant claims that she merely helped complainants find an agency that could secure for them employment overseas. She acted as a "good samaritan" by facilitating their quest for a better economic status. She denies receiving the fees paid by complainants and asserts that it was Julie Micua who recruited complainants and collected the placement fees for overseas employment. An examination of the records, however, reveals that accused-appellant is as culpable as Julie Micua. As to which of the contending claims should be believed is fundamentally an issue of credibility. Well settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court that had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified. The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.17[17] We find no cogent reason to depart from this time-honored doctrine. Accused-appellant failed to show that complainants, who were mostly her townmates and some even her relatives, were ill-motivated in filing the cases against her; hence, their testimonies merit full faith and credit. 15[15] People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306 (1994) 16[16] People v. Briones, 202 SCRA 708 (1991) 17[17] People v. Jumao-as, 230 SCRA 70, 77 (1994)