6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly inherently a weak defense and it is not at all persuasive. Accused spouses did not deny being in Cagayan de Oro City, albeit they asserted to have arrived months earlier than the alleged date, and they likewise did not deny having met private complainants on different occasions as some of the private complainants were even relatives of accused Owen. xxxx Parenthetically, there is no question that accused spouses are likewise liable for estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. We are convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt Accused Spouses' guilt for three (3) counts of Estafa. xxxx There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 (a) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. Likewise, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing of value. In the present case, private complainants were led to believe by accused spouses that they possessed the power and qualifications to provide them with work in Macau when in fact they were neither licensed nor authorized to do so. Accused spouses made it appear to private complainants that Beatriz was requested by her employer to hire workers for Macau, when in fact she was not. They even recruited their own relatives in the guise of helping them get better jobs with higher pays abroad for them to improve their standard of living. Likewise, private complainants were deceived by accused spouses by pretending that the latter could arrange their employment in Macau, China. With these misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, they suffered damages and they were forced to part with their hard-earned money, as one of them even testified to have mortgaged her house and another, to have borrowed money from a lending institution just to raise the alleged processing fees.[11] The factual findings of the CA are accepted because the Court is not a trier of facts. Such findings, which affirmed those of the RTC as the trial court, are now even binding on us. This is because the RTC had the unique advantage to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, and the personal opportunity to test the accuracy and reliability of their recollections of past events, both of which are very decisive in a litigation like this criminal prosecution for the serious crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale where the parties have disagreed on the material facts.[12] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62691 11/16