Accused-appellants denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants, who had no motive to testify falsely against him except to tell the truth. Accused-appellant also points to certain inconsistencies in the complainants testimonies, allegedly casting doubts on the plausibility of their charges. According to him, these undermine the credibility of the complainants and their testimonies. There is no merit in this contention. We have consistently ruled that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses. What is important is the fact that accused-appellant was positively identified by the complainants as one of those who made misrepresentations, collected fees from them, and who pretended to make arrangements for job placements abroad for them. Indeed, the denials of the accused cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.xxxv[35] Nor is it true that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused-appellant in court as one of those who recruited them. As the foregoing excerpts from the transcripts of stenographic notes clearly show, the complainants positively identified accused-appellant as one of those who committed the crimes charged in the informations. Moreover, they pointed to him in open court. Although it appears from the transcripts that the court did not require accused-appellant to identify himself for purposes of record, such is of no considerable consequence under the circumstances. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there is no doubt as to accusedappellants identity as he was the only accused in the case being heard as named in the informations. There were no other accused on trial for this case. Undoubtedly, when the transcripts state witness pointing to the accused, they were referring to accused-appellant and no one else. Third. The acts of accused-appellant as described in the testimonies of the complainants constitute recruitment and placement under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, to wit: (A)ny 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: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. As the POEA certified that accused-appellant, his wife, and sister-in-law were not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, there is no doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment (Art. 38(a)). Moreover, since three or more persons had been recruited by accused-appellant, he is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale (Art. 38(b)), punishable under Article 39 of the same Code with life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos. In Criminal Case No. 92-105276, accused-appellant was charged with and convicted of violating Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code which provides: