July 17, 1982, when Clarita Mosquera allegedly gave the amount of P15,000.00 and P1,500.00 or a total of P16,500.00 to Angelica C.J. Offemaria at the Phil-Am Life Bldg. at U.N. Avenue, Manila.[28] Petitioner strongly submits that her mere presence is insufficient to render her guilty as principal of estafa, for conviction as a conspirator in the crime of estafa must be drawn from positive and conclusive evidence and not from mere inference.[29] Petitioners contention is devoid of merit. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is thereby caused to the offended party or third person. Both elements have been proven in this case. The evidence for the prosecution shows that the accused were able to make private complainant part with her money upon their fraudulent misrepresentation that they can provide her and her aunt with work abroad. Accused-petitioners protestation that her direct participation in the crime has not been established is contradicted by the complainants testimony that it was accusedpetitioner who introduced the complainant to her mother and co-accused, Angelica C.J. Offemaria. That was her direct participation in the crime. Petitioner was present with her mother when Angelica C.J. Offemaria made representation that they are in need of two baby-sitters for the United States and that petitioner required them to make an initial deposit of P5,000.00 each; but subsequently, they have actually paid P27,925.00 in all. Her presence anew at Phil-Am Life Bldg. when another payment was given by the private complainant who was then told to wait for the good news serves only to further show her participation in the fraudulent misrepresentation that they could send complainant abroad to work as a baby-sitter. Notwithstanding non-participation in every detail in the execution of the crime, still the culpability of the accused exists. [30] There is no clear showing that the complainant and her witnesses had any ill motive to single-out and testify falsely against petitioner. It is generally observed that it is against human nature and experience to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[31] As aptly expressed by the appellate court: Why would [private complainant] Mosquera include [petitioner] and exclude the latters half-sister Bituin dela Torre who was then the clerk of Angelica and who was even involved in following-up Mosqueras travel papers with a certain travel agency. (TSN, November 29, 1991, pp. 19, 20 and 22, January 10, 1992, pp. 13-14). The only plausible explanation is that it was really [petitioner] together with the accused Diu, Briones and Nocete who actively persuaded Mosquera to part with her money. [32] Thus, the Court finds it hard to accept the claim of petitioner that private complainant had prevaricated the evidence to implicate the petitioner, simply because private complainant could not locate petitioners mother, Angelica C.J. Offemaria. It is, of