6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Q. You never insisted from her for you to get your... you never insisted that you be deployed to Korea? A. No. more because she was always asking for money and gives us several promises that we will be able to work for Korea.[48] Thus, considering the foregoing, we can conclude that all three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in the instant case. To recapitulate: First, appellant engaged in recruitment when she represented herself to be capable of deploying workers to South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees; Second, all three (3) private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised them employment as domestic helpers in Korea for a fee; and Third, Rosalina Rosales of the Licensing Division of the POEA, testified that as per Certification issued by Noriel Devanadera, Director IV, Licensing and Regulation Office, appellant is not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Clearly, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution. This Court has consistently conformed to the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight. Factual findings of the trial court and its observation as to the testimonies of the witnesses are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect, most especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. The reason for this is that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed first-hand their demeanor and manner of testifying under grueling examination. In the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[49] Moreover, private complainants' testimonies were consistent and substantially corroborate each other on material points, such as the amount of the fees they gave to appellant, the country of destination and the nature of work. It was also established that appellant gave private complainants the impression that she had the ability to send them to South Korea for work in such a manner that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Without any evidence to show that private complainants were propelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellant, we shall accord their testimonies full faith and credit.[50] Meanwhile, appellant's defense that she merely referred private complainants to a certain "Madam Rosa" fails to convince as the same was unsupported by any evidence. Between the categorical statements of the private complainants and the bare denial of appellant, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when the former comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted. [51] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63140 12/18