Branch 8, the policemen went to the house of appellants cousin at 2320-B San Antonio, Sampaloc, Manila at 3:00 p.m. of 25 August 1993. According to Deladia, however, they did not get anything from appellant because their mission was only to arrest her. At the counter intelligence branch of the CIS, he did not even hear appellant requesting for the return of a brief case.xxx[30] Apparently because of what had turned out to be Deladias adverse testimony, the defense presented George Santiago who claimed to be at the boarding house when appellant was arrested. Santiago said that he had allowed the CIS agents to enter the boarding house. Santiago did not see what might have happened in appellant's room but what he did see was that when the agents all came out, they had with them an attache case. Santiago, accompanied by his cousin Atty. Lomboan, went to the CIS in Camp Crame where one of the men asked P50,000.00 for the release of appellant. Santiago did not see any brief case in the office but one of the men told them that they would "produce" appellant and the attache case if they could "produce" the amount of P50,000.00.xxxi[31] On cross-examination, however, Santiago admitted that the P50,000.00 was meant for bonding purposes and that they did not make a formal request for the release of the brief case.xxxii[32] The defense next attempted to shift, albeit unsuccessfully, the responsibility for the crime from appellant to Maritess and Carol. Presented at the witness stand was Oscar Gaoyen, a 30-year-old farmer, who testified that appellant had failed to assist him in going to Korea to work because it was difficult. While following up his application in Manila, he met Marites and Carol in front of the Dangwa station in Dimasalang and he was told that they knew someone who could "transfer his application to Taiwan." He said that even after he had paid appellant P50,000.00, nothing happened constraining him to file charges against her. Appellant returned P15,000.00 of the money to him.xxxiii[33] Appellant filed, before the trial court could promulgate its decision, a Motion to Reopen Trial with an urgent motion to defer promulgation on the ground of newly discovered evidence.xxxiv[34] In its order of 03 March 1995, the trial court, noting that the newly discovered evidence consisted of affidavits of desistance of seven complainants, found no merit in the motion. It held that presentation of the same does not give valid ground for possible amendment of the decision as the private complainants had already testified. It agreed with the prosecutor that the affidavits of desistance only (had) the effect of satisfying the civil liability.xxxv[35] The Judgment of the Trial Court. On 03 March 1995, the trial court rendered its decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It found implausible appellants claim that she was merely an agent of Dynasty Travel and Tours and/or Maritess Tapia and Carol Cornelio. If what she claimed were true, said the court, appellant could have presented her principals; instead, that failure exposed her to the adverse inference and legal presumption that evidence suppressed would be adverse if produced. It also found hard to believe, the "self-serving" claim of appellant that her brief case, supposedly containing receipts of her remittances to the travel agencies, was confiscated by the CIS and remained unaccounted for. The trial court concluded: