serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. Between categorical statements of prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and bare denials of the accused, on the other hand, the former must perforce prevail.xvi[16] All of the witnesses testified to having personally met the accused; they averred that she asked from them a sum of money in exchange for the promised employment overseas. Moreover, exhibits were presented in the form of receipts issued by and copies of the documentary requirements submitted to appellant. For appellant to say that she was merely chosen as a scapegoat for appellees' misfortune, having failed to bring the alleged real recruiter to justice, does not appear well founded. It is but a hasty generalization of no probative significance. Without credible evidence proferred by the defense, bad faith or ulterior motive could not be imputed on the part of the appellees in pointing to the accused as the illegal recruiter who victimized them. When there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.xvii[17] If indeed appellant was merely the office neighbor of the real illegal recruiter, then there should be no plausible reason for complainants to harbor any grudge against appellant. Appellants brief describes her as a hapless old woman,xviii[18] and referred to complainants as educated college graduates.xix[19] To hurl a criminal charge against a woman in her sixties knowing it carries with it such a heavy penalty as life imprisonment, just because complainants needed a convenient fall guy to answer for their misfortune caused by their own gullibility,xx[20] goes against the grain of human nature. When a charge of such gravity is made, dismissing the charge as baseless on the basis of a simple denial, without more, could tax ones credulity. Behind the accusations made by complainants are incontrovertible pieces of evidence found by the trial court, and to which we now give full faith and credence, as proving the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. Aside from testimonies, documentary evidence including receipts, bouncing checks, and employment application forms traceable to the appellant are on record. Moreover, we have no reason to discount the trial courts appreciation of the complainant-witnesses truthfulness, honesty and candor. For such appreciation deserves the highest respect, since the trial court is best equipped to make the assessment of the witnesses credibility. Its factual findings are generally not disturbed on appeal. Furthermore, it is also in a vantage position to gauge the credibility of witnesses and to properly appreciate the relative weight of the often conflicting evidence presented by the parties.xxi[21] The uncorroborated testimony of appellant, in our view, is far from credible and utterly fails to overcome the great weight of the prosecutions evidence concerning her guilt. While the trial court correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment committed in a large scale, the court a quo inaccurately imposed upon appellant the penalty of life imprisonment (RECLUSION PERPETUA). Time and again we have emphasized the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua. Here, that distinction ought to be stressed anew.xxii[22] WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, convicting appellant Cristina M. Hernandez of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as defined and penalized under Articles 38 (a), (b) and (39) of the Labor Code is hereby AFFIRMED with