Lina Salcedo corroborated accused-appellants testimony. Salcedo testified that she owns the house on 1333 Lardizabal St., Sampaloc, Manila. Also living there was a house boarder named Paz Alonzo who had a friend named Julie Micua. Sometime in December 1990, Micua visited Paz at Salcedos boarding house when accusedappellant arrived. It was on this occasion that Julie Micua and accused-appellant met for the first time and they discussed how to get employment in HongKong. After Christmas, accused-appellant returned to Salcedos house with some companions. Salcedo saw the members of the group giving money to Julie Micua for which the latter issued corresponding receipts. It was Julia Micua who did all the explaining. Accused-appellant and her companions returned to Salcedos house on two other occasions. According to Salcedo, she was present when all the transactions took place and she observed that Julie Micua never gave money or any consideration to accused-appellant.10[10] Lina Salcedos testimony was corroborated on the witness stand by her sister Violy Constantino.11[11] On March 1, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch I, rendered the decision now on appeal before this Court. In justifying accused-appellants conviction, the trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the complainants as they were "clear and straightforward" and "reflect spontaneity and are replete with details, which conform to what appears from the other evidence on record." It found that the complainants "positively identified the accused as the one who had persuaded them to apply for overseas employment, accompanied them all the way from Pangasinan to Manila, [and] personally received from them various sums as placement fees." Further, the trial court found no improper motive on the part of the complainants, thus: xxx it is hard to believe that the private complainants, who all reside in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, would undergo the expense, rigor and inconvenience of a public trial if their motive is not to bring to justice the person/s who had defrauded them. xxx12[12] Accordingly, the trial court held that all the elements of Article 315, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code were proven in the cases for estafa. In likwise finding accusedappellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, the trial court stated: x x x this court is convinced beyond moral certainty that there was unity of action, purpose and design between the accused and Julie Micua to recruit the private complainants for overseas employment in Hongkong without first securing a license or an authority therefor from the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency. The accused took a direct and active 10[10] TSN, March 5, 1993. pp. 2-8. 11[11] TSN, June 9, 1993. pp. 2-4. 12[12] Records, SCA Gr. 117145-50, p. 191.