minimum to one month maximum. His placement location with be purportedly with ARAMCO
in Saudi Arabia as general foreman and later as general skilled worker.v[5]
Another applicant who testified was Pedro Bonifacio; he stated that he met accused-appellant
through his neighbor, Calara. Initially, the job vacancy offered to him was for a waiter. However,
he was later informed that there was no more opening for said position. Instead, the post of
general skilled worker at ARAMCO would be given to him. He likewise paid the necessary
processing fees and submitted the necessary requirements.vi[6]
Ernesto Cruz, another witness, testified that he was introduced to accused-appellant by her agent,
Bernardino. When he was at Min-Asia preparing his application, he met several other applicants
all accompanied by Bernardino. He was likewise made to pay the processing fees.vii[7]
The last witness, Luisito Marias, testified that as an applicant he met accused-appellant in MinAsia through Diwang Tolentino. Marias was promised employment abroad as a laborer. He paid
a portion of the processing fees in cash, but no receipt was issued. When his employment did not
materialize, Marias sought to withdraw his money. Accused-appellant issued a check which
bounced upon presentation for encashment, by reason of insufficient funds.viii[8]
Payments made by the witnesses for processing of their applications as evidenced by receipts
were submitted as exhibits for the prosecution.ix[9]
On the part of the defense, accused-appellant was presented as lone witness. She claimed that she
held office in the same building as Min-Asia, and that she was engaged in the business of
retailing Magnolia Chicken. According to her, she sub-leased to Min-Asia one-half of her office
space but without a written lease contract between the parties. Her testimony mainly denied the
averment that she was connected with Min-Asia (other than as a sub-lessor). She denied all
allegations of holding any position with, or being an officer of, the recruitment agency. She
further denied being a stockholder of said agency. Although she testified as to the names of the
owners of the agency, she denied any knowledge of their current whereabouts. Neither did she
admit to ever personally meeting any of the complainants. She admitted to having met codefendant Mendez, but only because he was an employee of the agency and used to report for
work at Min-Asia. She denied as her own the signatures appearing in the exhibits presented to
her.x[10]
After weighing the testimonies and evidence presented, the trial court found the accusedappellants defense, which consisted mainly of denying the allegations presented by the witnesses
for the prosecution, unconvincing. The trial judge pointed out that, as it has been consistently
held by this Court, the defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive
and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused recruited the applicants
with the intention to defraud them of their placement fees.xi[11] Hence, the trial court held that
the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds that the accused CRISTINA
HERNANDEZ and RIZALINO MENDEZ, [are] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegal recruitment, committed in a large scale, as defined in Article 38 (a) and (b) of Presidential