5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. In Our view, despite Inovero’s protestations that she did not commit illegal recruitment, the following circumstances contrarily convince Us that she was into illegal recruitment. First, private complainants Baful and Brizuela commonly testified that Inovero was the one who conducted orientations/briefings on them; informed them, among others, on how much their salary would be as caregivers in Japan; and what to wear when they finally will be deployed. Second, when Diala introduced her (Inovero) to private complainant Amoyo as one of the owners of HARVEL, Inovero did not bother to correct said representation. Inovero’s silence is clearly an implied acquiescence to said representation. Third, Inovero, while conducting orientation on private complainant Brizuela, represented herself as the one expediting the release of applicants’ working visa for Japan. Fourth, in a Certification issued and attested to by POEA’s Versoza – Inovero had no license nor authority to recruit for overseas employment. Based on the foregoing, there is therefore no doubt that the RTC correctly found that Inovero committed illegal recruitment in large scale by giving private complainants the impression that she can send them abroad for employment purposes, despite the fact that she had no license or authority to do so.[12] It is basic that the Court, not being a trier of facts, must of necessity rely on the findings of fact by the trial court which are conclusive and binding once affirmed by the CA on intermediate review. The bindingness of the trial court’s factual findings is by virtue of its direct access to the evidence. The direct access affords the trial court the unique advantage to observe the witnesses’ demeanor while testifying, and the personal opportunity to test the accuracy and reliability of their recollections of past events, both of which are very decisive in a litigation like this criminal prosecution for the serious crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale where the parties have disagreed on the material facts. The Court leaves its confined precinct of dealing only with legal issues in order to deal with factual ones only when the appellant persuasively demonstrates a clear error in the appreciation of the evidence by both the trial and the appellate courts. This demonstration was not done herein by the appellant. Hence, the Court upholds the CA’s affirmance of the factual findings by the trial court. All that Inovero’s appeal has offered was her denial of complicity in the illegal recruitment of the complainants. But the complainants credibly described and affirmed her specific acts during the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. Their elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57144 6/12