4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Article 13(b)[23] or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; 2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and 3) the accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[24] It has been established that the three (3) private complainants met with the appellant on separate occasions in her office at 180-D Monterey Street, 15th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City to apply for overseas employment. On the said occasions, she promised them employment either as construction workers or piggery helpers in Japan for a fee. Despite subsequent payment of her required fees, she failed to secure for the three (3) private complainants any overseas employment. Clearly, the appellant was engaged in large scale recruitment and placement activities which were illegal for the reason that she had no license nor authority from the Secretary of Labor and Employment. The appellant cannot escape liability for her criminal acts by conveniently passing the blame on a certain Gloria de Leon who has allegedly escaped to Taiwan after reneging on her commitment to secure overseas employment for the private complainants. Like the trial court, we entertain serious doubts on this version of the appellant which is self-serving and lacks corroborative evidence to support it. On the other hand, the testimonies of the private complainants that they transacted directly with the appellant who promised them overseas jobs after receiving money from them were found by the trial court to be honest and straightforward and thus worthy of full faith and credence, as compared to the evasive and ambiguous answers of the appellant to the questions propounded to her during the trial.[25] We accord great respect to the said finding of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[26] Besides, we find it hard to believe that the three (3) private complainants would be so morally depraved as to maliciously impute grave charges against the appellant if she were not the actual perpetrator thereof. The records of these cases do not show that they had any ill motive to testify falsely against the appellant. They were not known to one another and did not have any previous transaction with the appellant before they met her at her office to apply for overseas employment. It is generally observed that it is against human nature and common experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[27] The signatures[28] of the appellant appearing on the written receipts presented by the prosecution during the trial of the instant criminal cases acknowledging receipt of the corresponding amounts stated thereon undeniably support the testimonies of the private complainants that they transacted directly with the appellant. Significantly, the signature of Gloria de Leon does not appear on any of those written receipts. The appellant even issued two (2) BPI checks in the total amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) payable to Rodrigo Acorda. She also delivered to Orlando Velasco a sala set, as partial re-payment in kind, which Orlando admitted had an equivalent value https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52399 6/12