6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly in Qatar for a fee.[29] This factual finding was affirmed by the CA who observed that: A thorough examination of the evidence on record reveals that the prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant represented herself to be a licensed agent of the local manning agency named Pert/CPM Manpower Exponents Company Incorporated x x x. Accused-appellant induced, offered, and promised Edgardo Ramirez, Mary Ann Tucay, and Christopher Yambao ("private complainants", collectively) employment in Qatar - Ramirez would be hired as a waiter, Tucay would be hired as a receptionist, and Yambao would be hired as a mechanical engineer. Private complainants were convinced and made to believe that accused-appellant was authorized to hire them and capable of sending them to Qatar. Accused-appellant took the resumes, medical examination results, and other documentation from Ramirez, Tucay, and Yambao, promising that accused-appellant would be the one to process their applications. In the guise of processing their applications, accused-appellant asked for sums of money from private complainants. x x x Despite receiving sums of money from private complainants, accused-appellant did not issue any receipts. However, private complainants were not deployed to Qatar. This prompted Ramirez, Yambao, and another aspiring applicant, Richard Peroche, to verify with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-appellant had a license to recruit. They discovered that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, as evinced by the POEA Certification dated May 24, 2011.[30] As consistently adhered to by this Court, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge,[31] who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. When such findings have been affirmed by the CA, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court. This attains more significance in this case as appellant's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies[32] of Ramirez, Tucay, and Yambao. Absent any evidence that the complainants were motivated by improper motives, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court,[33] as in this case. Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellant neither had the license nor the authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. This fact was stipulated upon by the defense when the testimony of POEA Rep. Dumigpi was dispensed with. Third, there are at least three (3) victims in this case which makes appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment. Clearly, the existence of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was duly proven by the prosecution. Meanwhile, the elements of Estafa as charged are, namely: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[34] The active representation by appellant of having the capacity to deploy Ramirez, Tucay, and Yambao abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66642 7/13