"xxx appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment and testimonies of eyewitnesses by the trial court because of its unequal opportunity to observe on the stand their demeanor and manner of testifying and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not. xxx" (People v. Navales, 266 SCRA 569) xxx It is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth.(People v. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26) xxx Absent any showing of a fact or any circumstance which the trial court failed to appreciate and which have changed the result if it were considered, the factual findings laid down by the trial court remain binding upon us. (People v. Valles, 267 SCRA 103) After a thorough review and examination of the evidence on record, the Court finds no basis for disbelieving what the trial court of origin found and arrived at. Appellant berates the trustworthiness of the complaining witnesses who narrated how appellant conspired with his wife, Elizabeth, and brother-in-law, Willy Ramos, in the commission of the crimes charged. This deserves scant consideration, however, because the modus operandi of the spouses, Ernesto Borromeo and Willy Ramos, brother-in-law of Ernesto, has been established beyond any iota of doubt, to wit: Willy Ramos recruited applicants as factory workers in Taiwan, and introduced his recruits to the spouses, Ernesto Borromeo and Elizabeth Borromeo, who assured all and sundry of their ability and preparedness to sent workers abroad, upon payment of P15,000.00 for medical expenses and processing fees. Cajoled by such promise and misrepresentation, the poor applicants paid the amounts demanded of them, only to discover later that the malefactors were not licensed and authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. This fact was indubitably attested to by the Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (Exhibit F). Ernesto Borromeo and Willy Ramos did not return the money of the complainants, who were unable to work abroad as promised by the appellant Ernesto Borromeo, his wife, Elizabeth Borromeo and brother-in-law, Willy Ramos. As regards the theory of appellant that there was no documentary evidence evidencing that he had received, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the money of complainants for his personal use and benefit, the straight forward narrations by the complainants negate such submission of appellants. Complainants testified as follows: Q. Now, did you actually pay the P3,000.00 for medical examination? A. Yes, sir. Q. To whom did you pay? A. To Mr. and Mrs. Borromeo, sir. Q. To whom did you actually handed the (sic) the money?