case of the prosecution. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that the accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.31[31] Rtcsppedo The prosecution evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment committed in large scale. He was positively identified by complainants as the person who had recruited them for employment in Taiwan. He succeeded in inveigling them into paying various amounts to him for their placement fees. Their testimonies dovetail with each other in material points. There is no showing that any of complainants had any ill-motives to testify against accused-appellant. Their testimonies were straightforward, credible and convincing.32[32] In contrast, accused-appellant failed to present evidence to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. He failed to present the person allegedly responsible for the recruitment of the complainants. As a result of his failure to do so, he risked the adverse inference and legal presumption that he did not present such witnesses because their testimonies would actually be adverse if produced.33[33] For, indeed, accused-appellant could have adduced evidence to prove that he was an employee of the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, a duly authorized agency. He could have presented the manager of the agency to corroborate his claim that complainants actually applied to the agency and not through him. Instead, he merely interposed denials in his defense. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, accused-appellants mere denials cannot prevail.34[34] He was aptly meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P100,000.00 under Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code. Third. Accused-appellant contends that the elements of estafa have not been proven by the prosecution, specifically, the requirement that complainants must have relied on the false pretenses of accused-appellant, because complainants knew that he was not a licensed recruiter. The contention has no merit. The following elements of estafa are present in these cases, to wit: (1) the accused has defrauded the offended party by means of abuse of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as a result, damage or prejudice, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to the offended party or third person. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself to complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Taiwan, and by reason of his misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, complainants were induced to part with their money, thus causing them damage and prejudice. 31[31] People v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998) 32[32] People v. Gharbia, G.R. No. 123010, July 20, 1999. 33[33] See People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 127159, May 5, 1999. 34[34] People v. Mercado, G.R. Nos. 108440-42, March 11, 1999.