Decree No. 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I, P.D. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c) of said Code as further amended by P.D. Nos. 169, 1920 and 2018, accordingly sentences both accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (RECLUSION PERPETUA) with the accessory penalties provided for by law, each to pay a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to return and pay, jointly and solidarily, to Calara the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS; to Bonifacio the sum of THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P13,500.00) PESOS; to Cruz the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS; to Marias the sum of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (P6,300.00) PESOS; also without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. Manila, Philippines, November 20, 1991.xii[12] Records of the case were forwarded to this Court by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, in view of the fact that penalty in this case is life imprisonment.xiii[13] She now seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction on the sole ground that the lower court erred in appreciating the evidence presented by the prosecution in its favor, and disregarding the denial asserted by her. In her brief, appellant maintains that she has no personal connection in any way with Min-Asia, either as an officer or as a stockholder thereof. However, she admits that she was lessor of the office space at Don Santiago Building in Taft Avenue but that she sub-leased half of her space to said agency. The names of the recruiters, Bernardino and Tolentino came up in the testimonies of the complainants but they were never apprehended nor brought to trial, thus she contends that she was held to answer for the charge being allegedly the only link to Bernardino who remains still at large. She denies the signatures indicated in several cash vouchers and receipts as her own. According to her, the fact that she was always seen at the agency, was a mistaken presumption of her connection with Min-Asia. Moreover, she explains the reason she was always within the vicinity of the agency was that the other half of the space rented out was her office. She further states that, it is unusual and unnatural for the complainants who were all college graduates to entrust their hard earned money to a sexagenarian, [o]n the other hand, it is against human experience that a 64-year-old woman would risk being incarcerated by engaging in illegal recruitment.xiv[14] After a thorough study and consideration of the evidence on record, we are inclined to affirm the trial courts judgment. We find appellant, despite her denial, to have been engaged in the practice of illegal recruitment in large scale and thus violated the provisions of Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 39 (a) and Article 13 (b) and (c) of the Labor Code.xv[15] Appellants argument is less than convincing. In the face of direct and positive evidence presented by four complainants against her, the appellant could interpose only the defense of denial. She would want the trial court to make her denial prevail over the testimonies and documents presented by the prosecution. However, nothing on record would show any ill-motive or bias whatsoever that would taint the prosecutions evidence. It thus becomes impossible for an objective judge to overturn, without legal basis, precedents which maintain that denial is a self-