(1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.12 The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, namely: private complainants Decena, Mercurio, Dela Cruz, and Mazon and Licensure Officer III Balverde, of the POEA, prove that appellant and his wife Miranda promised overseas employment to private complainants upon payment of placement fees, without the necessary license therefor. Appellant maintains that he could not have transacted with private complainants as he was out of their house as a jeepney driver from 6 o’clock in the morning to 9 o’clock in the evening, seven days a week. With these conflicting versions of the parties, it is quite clear that the resolution of this case revolves around the credibility of witnesses. We are constrained to scrutinize the entire records of the case and determine whether the prosecution evidence has proven the existence of all the elements of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa. It is important to keep in mind the oft-repeated rule that: . . . where the issue is on credibility, the findings of the trial court will generally not be disturbed. The trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their conduct during the trial, circumstances that carry great weight in appreciating credibility. The trial court is thus in a better position to settle such an issue.13 We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court, especially its evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, thus: "the testimonies of private complainants . . . given in clear, logical and straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incidents that could not have been merely concocted, reflecting spontaneity and sincerity in the narration of events, are indicative of the truth of what actually happened." 14 The testimonies of the four private complainants, viewed in their totality, have indeed established that appellant and Miranda cooperated with each other in convincing private complainants to pay them a placement fee ofP38,000.00 for employment as factory workers in Korea, despite the absence of the required license therefor. The alleged segmented portions of the testimonies of Mercurio, Dela Cruz, and Mazon, quoted by appellant in his appellant’s brief, that supposedly would show that only his wife Miranda was involved in illegal recruitment, were obviously taken out of context. A scrutiny of the entirety of all four private complainants’ testimonies would show that sometimes, it would be appellant who would transact business with private complainants and at other times, it would be appellant’s wife Miranda. Most damning for appellant, however, is the fact that all the private complainants categorically stated that it was appellant who received sums of money from them and refused to issue a receipt. Such fact shows that he actively engaged in the recruitment of three or more workers for employment abroad despite the lack of the necessary license from the POEA, which act constitutes the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Next, we come to the charges of four separate counts of estafa against appellant. Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code provides thus: ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000.00; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. ......... 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. ... Verily, the very same evidence proving appellant’s commission of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale also established that appellant and Miranda acted with unity of purpose in defrauding private complainants by misrepresenting that they (appellant and Miranda) had the power, influence, agency and business to obtain overseas employment for private complainants upon payment of a placement fee, which complainants did pay and deliver to appellant. Thus, private complainants suffered damages to the extent of the various sums of money they delivered to appellant, i.e., P34,000.00 from Decena, P21,000.00 each from Mercurio and Dela Cruz, andP15,000.00 from Mazon. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the four counts of estafa. The Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the penalty imposed on appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 92-113709, competently explaining thus: We note, however, that the trial court imposed the wrong penalty in Criminal Case No 92-113709 . . . involving the amount of P34,000.00. Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, if the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayorin the minimum period shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years) adding one year for each additional P10,000.00; but the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.