6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly defined under Article 13(b), or in any prohibited activities under Article 34, of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the same unlawful acts against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[24] Appellant would capitalize on the failure of the complainants to produce evidence that they really paid the amounts which they claim.[25] We have ruled in People vs. Goce, [26] that complainant’s failure to ask for receipts for the fees paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payment, is not fatal to their case. As held by the court below in its challenged decision: “x x x Because of the trust they had (i)n the accused, they did not demand receipts for their payments. The failure to produce or demand receipts does not negate the fact that they actually paid the amounts. The trust and belief that (they) had reposed (i)n the accused was from the very first meeting up to the last time they made the payment uninterrupted so there was no reason for them to ask for receipts for the other payments made despite the sizeable amount they paid. x x x.”[27] As already stated, appellant raised alibi as a defense. Times without number, this Court has ruled that alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can easily be fabricated.[28] Such defense becomes weaker if uncorroborated, worse still if it could have been corroborated by other persons mentioned by appellant but such corroborative testimony was not presented. As pointed out by the lower court in its decision: “The alibi of the accused could not be relied on by this Court as to raise even a shadow of a doubt on the improbability of his commission of the offense charged. It merits outright rejection where it could have been corroborated by other witnesses, but no such corroborating evidence was presented. Accused was given three hearing dates with(in) which to present other evidence that would corroborate his testimony but (no) one (was) offered. Based on the testimony of the accused there could have been more than twenty other persons who could have corroborated his testimony. His failure to present any of them raises doubt on his testimony. x x x.”[29] To be given credence, it must not only appear that the accused was at some other place and that it was physically impossible for him to associate and transact business with the complainants. Said the trial court: “x x x Accused’(s) alibi is not only weak but also not worthy of belief. His testimony has not established his whereabouts during the months of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34555 6/9