A: He (sic) does not issue a receipt, she told me that. Q: To whom did you personally deliver the P2,000.00? A: To Mrs. Boneng (TSN., 24 February 1994, pp. 18-21). From the aforecited testimony, it is decisively clear that aside from the promise to deploy complainant Ma. Teresa Garcia in Hongkong, the petitioner accepted a part of the P30,000.00 fee she was collecting for her recruitment work. Neither do we discern any tenability in petitioners contention that the prosecution should have secured sworn statements from the other applicants to prove her (petitioners) recruitment activities. In People vs. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574, it was succinctly ruled that the testimony of a single prosecution witness, where credible and positive, is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. There is no law which requires that the testimony of a single witness has to be corroborated, except where expressly mandated in determining the value and credibility of evidence. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. In People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 665, the Court also held that any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13 (b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved.vii[7] Petitioner complains that the Court of Appeals ignored an avalanche of material inconsistenciesviii[8] tainting the testimony of complainant Ma. Teresa Garcia. Records disclose, however, that the said court did pass upon such aspect of the case but adjudged the same trivial and minor inconsistencies. Ratiocinated the Court of Appeals: xxx In this connection appellant has referred to inconsistencies as to the narration of events that transpired on 24 September 1994. But these are trivial and minor points. In People vs. Trilles, 254 SCRA 633, the Supreme Court held: Trivial inconsequential inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses do not merit consideration and cannot destroy the credibility of said witnesses in the face of the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator(s) of the crime."ix[9] Petitioner also questions the legality and validity of her arrest sans a warrant. On this score, the Court of Appeals erred not in affirming the ruling by the trial court of origin that the present case falls under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit: Sec. 5 Arrest Without Warrant; when lawful - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: x x x (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;