People vs Buemio : 114011 : December 16, 1996 : J. Kapunan : First D... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/dec1996/114011.htm [20] additional witnesses before the trial court finally ordered the case submitted for decision. The [21] [22] defense filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order which the trial court granted but still, the defense failed to present its promised additional witnesses. Hence, on November 30, 1993, the trial court issued an order decreeing that the defense had waived presentation of further evidence and directing it to make a formal offer of the evidence already presented within [23] ten days. On January 19, 1994, the defense submitted a motion to defer the promulgation of [24] judgment and to reopen the case but the following day, it nevertheless formally offered its [25] exhibits. From the foregoing, it is very clear that appellant was given more than enough opportunity to fully ventilate her defense and therefore she was accorded due process of law. There is due process if the following conditions are present: (1) a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction lawfully acquired by the court over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must [26] be given an opportunity to be heard, and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. All these conditions have been satisfied in the case at bar. What is repugnant to due process is [27] an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. Appellants failure to present additional witnesses was within her power and that of her counsel to avert. Verily, her failure to act with prudence and [28] diligence cannot elicit approval or sympathy from the Court. On the merits of the appeal, appellant contends in the main that the testimonies of Principe, Villanueva and Gutierrez are contrary to ordinary human experience. Thus, they could not have been enticed to work in factories in Japan as there was no mention of any contracts of appellant in that country who could provide them employment, nor were their specific work and workplace as well as the peso equivalent of their supposed salary ever pointed out by the appellant. Neither was it proven that appellant enticed them with convincing benefits in working in Japan [29] which would be enough for them to part with their money just so they could be TNTs in Japan. Appellants contentions boil down to the issue of credibility. As a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on said issue unless certain facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is because the trial court heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed [30] their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. No negative circumstances attend this case as to warrant departure from the general rule. In fact, a review of the transcript of stenographic notes in this case shows that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible. Taken as a whole and even under the crucible test of examination by the defense, said testimonies are not only consistent on all material respects but also replete with minutiae of the questioned transactions with the [31] appellant. Inasmuch as the trial court found the positive declarations of the complainants more credible than the sole testimony of the appellant denying said transactions, there must be a well-founded reason in order to deny great weight to the trials courts evaluation of the [32] prosecution witnesses testimonies. The defense has failed to provide that reason as it has failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of the complainant-witnesses in so imputing to appellant such a serious crime as illegal recruitment. We find the instant appeal to be without merit. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. The pertinent provisions of the Labor Code on illegal recruitment are as follows: ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices 6 of 10 1/20/2016 5:32 PM