explained that when Hapones could not be contacted, the complainants vented their anger towards him, being Hapones constant companion. Such being the case, accused-appellant insists that the second element, which is the absence of license or authority to recruit, could not have been present because there was in fact no need for him to apply for the license as he was not in the recruitment business. We are not impressed. Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements concur. First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to engage lawfully in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. In case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the accused commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[4] The first element is present. POEA representative Flordeliza Cabusao presented in evidence a certification from one Hermogenes Mateo, Director III, Licensing Branch, showing that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.[5] The second element is likewise present. Accused-appellant is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code when he made representations to each of the complainants that he could send them to Italy for employment as utility personnel.Prosecution witness Ofelia Bongbonga categorically stated that accused-appellant promised her employment for a fee, a testimony corroborated by both complaining witnesses Nolie Bongbonga and Millie Passi. His promises and misrepresentations gave the complainants the distinct impression that he had the authority to engage in recruitment, thus enabling him to collect from them various amounts for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. Accused-appellants vain attempt at exculpating himself by pinpointing Hapones as the culprit cannot mislead this Court from his transparent and obvious machinations. His self-serving statement that he himself was a victim of Hapones wilts in the face of the complaining-witnesses testimonies that he made promises of employment, solicited money from them and even signed receipts as proof of payment. His protestations notwithstanding, he failed to prove that the complaining witnesses were incited by any motive to testify falsely against him. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime, or even a casual acquaintance for that matter, that would take the latters liberty and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and assuage the frustration of their dreams to go abroad. [6] His denials cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-appellant's unsubstantiated denials cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[7]