People vs Pabalan : 115350 : September 30, 1996 : J Regalado : Secon... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/115350.htm appeared credible. There is no reason not to believe or discard their testimonies. There is no [29] sign that they testified falsely against the accused. Denials of an accused cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive [30] declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Verily, the trial court was correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses as their statements are positive and affirmative in nature. Their testimonies are more worthy of credit that the [31] uncorroborated and self-serving denials of appellant. Just like the lower court, we find it hard to believe the story presented by appellant that he merely helped Barrera and Luciano in going to Japan as tourists. Barrera was without gainful [32] work and Luciano was merely a farmer at the time they met appellant. It is incompatible with human behaviour and contrary to ordinary experience that people already in dire financial straits will make their lives more miserable by borrowing money and mortgaging their properties just so they can visit and tour a foreign land. Appellant finally stresses that if indeed he was guilty of illegal recruitment, he could have [33] simply changed his residence to evade prosecution. This argument is, unfortunately, purely hypothetical and clearly non sequitur. It cannot, by itself, strengthen his credibility or weaken those of the prosecutions witnesses. We have already ruled that non-flight is not a conclusive [34] proof of innocence because such inaction may be due to several factors. We now come to appellants supporting arguments on his supposed innocence in the estafa cases. On these charges, appellant claims that the evidence and circumstances on record do not show any act of deceit on his part, and that the money received from Barrera and Luciano [35] were utilized in procuring their passports and were therefore not misappropriated. Appellant was charged with and convicted for violating Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code which provides for one of the modes of committing estafa, thus: 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. Deceit in the instant cases is shown by the false pretenses by which appellant deluded complainants into believing that he had the power and qualifications to send people abroad for [36] employment. Through this hoax, he was able to convince complainants to surrender their money to him in the vain hope, as it turned out, of securing employment abroad. The reliance of appellant on the absence of the element of misappropriation is sorely misplaced and decidedly off-tangent. A reading of the law on estafa will readily show that misappropriation or conversion is referred to and is applicable in estafa under Article 315 (1)(b), and not to that in Article 315(2)(a). He also avers that his conviction in the second estafa case was without legal basis because there was no other evidence, documentary or testimonial, establishing the crime of estafa except [37] for the testimony of Garcia. Although this contention has already been disposed of in the discussions above, it also bears mention that the testimony of a single prosecution witness, where credible and positive, is 7 of 10 1/20/2016 1:00 PM