6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Third, there are at least three victims in this case which makes appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment. Appellant denies that she gave private complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work. She insists that she herself had been applying then as a factory worker in Korea through Narcisa Santos, who had previously deployed her as domestic helper in Hongkong. Although appellant admits having received payments from private complainants and issuing receipts, she submits that she did so only upon the instructions of Narcisa Santos, to whom she turned over the money collected from private complainants. The Court is not swayed by appellant's contentions. As found by the trial court and the appellate court, it was clearly established that appellant dealt directly with the private complainants: she explained to them the procedure for overseas employment; she charged them placement fees to cover their medical examination and the processing of their travel documents; she issued petty cash vouchers with her signature, acknowledging receipts of their payments; she promised the eventual release of their visas and employment contracts; and she made them sign Trainee Agreements, purportedly their contract with their Korean employer. Clearly, appellant, despite being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, engaged in recruitment activities, making her liable for illegal recruitment. Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies.[17] Appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.[18] The trial court's findings are accorded great respect unless the trial court has overlooked or misconstrued some substantial facts, which if considered might affect the result of the case.[19] Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive.[20] Thus, we affirm the finding of both the trial court and the appellate court that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale. However, we modify the penalty imposed. The penalty imposed by the trial court in this case for large-scale illegal recruitment, which constitutes economic sabotage, is life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. Section 7 of RA 8042 provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P5 00,000 nor more than P1,000,000 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Said article further provides that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Thus, the proper penalty in this case is life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000. Estafa We likewise affirm appellant's conviction for five counts of estafa under Article 315(2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60550 12/19