People vs Villas : 112180 : August 15, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Div... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/112180.htm reasonable doubt. First Element Appellant denies that she has committed any act that can be considered illegal recruitment. Thus, she argues: x x x in charges for illegal recruitment, it is necessary that the person charged must have some positive acts in looking for recruits. He must have at least, gone around to look for possible recruits or advertise his trade. He should not just be sitting down in his house and wait for the recruits to come to him. In the case at bar, the appellant did not go around to look for the private complainants, neither did she advertise her alleged illegal trade. She was in her house doing her usual course in the home as a house-wife when the private complainants came to him. She did not give instruction to Vilma Luyahan nor to Alfonsa Acierda to look for possible workers for Canada. Complainants came to her just to inquire on what to do in order to be able to land a job in Canada considering that she, the appellant had been to Singapore and is rumored to be due for departure to Canada. Hence, appellant can hardly be considered as having engaged in illegal recruitment.[22] The recruitment activities referred to in Article 38 of the Labor Code are enumerated in Article 13 (b) of the same Code. As convincingly shown by the prosecution, appellant informed the private complainants that she was recruiting nurses for employment in Canada and she explained to them the procedure in applying. She required them to submit to her their application letters, photocopies of their birth certificates, pictures and processing fee of $400 each. She was able to convince the four complainants that she had the authority and the ability to recruit workers for overseas employment. Thus, they submitted to her their application papers and initial fees. Thereafter, the accused demanded payment of the balance after private complainants received their case numbers from CIAS. All these acts plainly and clearly reveal appellants recruitment activities. On several occasions, this Court has held that there is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad though without authority or license to do so. He may merely give such an impression in order to induce an applicant to tender payment for fees.[23] Although appellant initially may not have done anything to entice individuals to apply to her for employment abroad, such fact does not in any way blot out her liability for engaging in illegal recruitment. Recruitment is a legal term; its meaning must be understood in the light of what the law contemplates, not of common parlance.[24] Her activities fall squarely within the provision of Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Appellants denials of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not persuasive. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence. They have no evidentiary value when ranged against the testimonies of credible witnesses on affirmative matters.[25] The trial court, finding the prosecution witnesses to be more credible and worthy of belief than the defense witnesses, declared: The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were clear, convincing, sincere and straightforward. The private complainants are all respectable registered nurses working in a certain hospital at Davao City. Prompted by an obsession to work abroad in order to earn more, they approached the accused when they heard that she is recruiting nurses to work in Canada. The accused, so persuasive and convincing was able 6 of 10 1/24/2016 11:04 PM