G.R. No. 179907 3 of 7 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/179907.htm On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision with a modification in [11] the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 03-215332 for estafa. Petitioner now comes before this Court on the sole issue of: WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA ARE [12] APPLICABLE IN THESE CASES. We deny the petition. Both the trial and appellate courts found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and convincing. We are, therefore, inclined to respect such finding. The best arbiter of the issue of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is the trial court. When the inquiry is on that issue, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Its finding thereon will not be disturbed, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, may affect the result of the case. We find no cogent reason to disturb the trial courts conclusion, as affirmed by [13] the CA. In the first case, petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment, defined and penalized by [14] the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042. Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the [15] latter was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or [16] abroad. Petitioners misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. Petitioners claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help the complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being enough that she gave the impression of having had the [17] authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad. 1/25/2016 2:35 PM