5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly positive assertions were far trustworthier than her mere denial. Denial, essentially a negation of a fact, does not prevail over an affirmative assertion of the fact. Thus, courts – both trial and appellate – have generally viewed the defense of denial in criminal cases with considerable caution, if not with outright rejection. Such judicial attitude comes from the recognition that denial is inherently weak and unreliable by virtue of its being an excuse too easy and too convenient for the guilty to make. To be worthy of consideration at all, denial should be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The accused cannot solely rely on her negative and self-serving negations, for denial carries no weight in law and has no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[13] It is no different here. We concur with the RTC and the CA that Inovero was criminally liable for the illegal recruitment charged against her. Strong and positive evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt her having conspired with her co-accused in the recruitment of the complainants. The decision of the CA amply recounted her overt part in the conspiracy. Under the law, there is a conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and decide to commit it.[14] The complainants paid varying sums for placement, training and processing fees, respectively as follows: (a) Baful – P28,500.00; (b) Brizuela – P38,600.00; (c) Aguirre – P38,600.00; (d) Amoyo – P39,000.00; and (e) Marbella – P20,250.00. However, the RTC and the CA did not adjudicate Inovero’s personal liability for them in their judgments. Their omission needs to be corrected, notwithstanding that the complainants did not appeal, for not doing so would be patently unjust and contrary to law. The Court, being the ultimate reviewing tribunal, has not only the authority but also the duty to correct at any time a matter of law and justice. It is, indeed, a basic tenet of our criminal law that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.[15] Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages.[16] To enforce the civil liability, the Rules of Court has deemed to be instituted with the criminal action the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged unless the offended party waives the civil action, or reserves the right to institute the civil action separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.[17] Considering that the crime of illegal recruitment, when it involves the transfer of funds from the victims to the accused, is inherently in fraud of the former, civil liability should include the return of the amounts paid as placement, training and processing fees.[18] Hence, Inovero and her co-accused were liable to indemnify the complainants for all the sums paid. That the civil liability should be made part of the judgment by the RTC and the CA was not disputable. The Court pointed out in Bacolod v. People[19] that it was “imperative that the courts prescribe the proper penalties when convicting the accused, and determine the civil liability to be imposed on the accused, unless there has been a reservation of the action to recover civil liability or a waiver of its recovery,” because: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57144 7/12