People vs Reyes : 104739-44 : November 18, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Th... 9 of 11 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/104739_44.htm amount of P64,000.00 by any of the Accused. Worse, the Accused had not returned the passports of the Private Complainants after taking custody of them. It is doctrinal that the trial courts evaluation of a testimony is accorded the highest respect, for the trial court has an untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness on the stand and, thus, to determine whether he or she is telling the truth. Such assessment is generally binding on this Court, except when the same has been reached arbitrarily; or when the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have affected the result of the case.[22] In the instant case, we find no reason to modify, let alone overturn, the factual finding of the trial court. Appellant deprecates the factual basis of the trial court ruling that he had engaged in recruitment, arguing that it consisted merely of the bare testimonies of the private complainants.[23] We are not persuaded. The law prescribes only that degree of proof necessary to produce conviction; no specific form, whether testimonial or documentary, is required for such proof.[24] Thus, the fact that the trial court based its ruling on the testimonies of private complainants does not detract from the evidentiary weight accorded thereto. As earlier observed, appellant has not given us sufficient reason to disregard the trial courts evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, appellant was unable to prove any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses that could have affected their credibility. Absent evidence to show any reason or motive why they would have testified falsely, we conclude that no such improper motive existed and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[25] In regard to appellants plea for mercy, further consideration of the matter is precluded by the axiom that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.[26] In any case, his allegation of lack of criminal intent is unavailing. Illegal recruitment in large scale which is penalized by the Labor Code is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. The fact alone that a person violated the law warrants his conviction.[27] Five Counts of Estafa Appellant contends that there was no intent or deceit on his part x x x to enlist workers for employment, and that he did not induce private complainants into paying them the fees as, in fact, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant charged or accepted fees.[28] The elements of estafa are as follows: (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.[29] In the case before us, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the five private complainants were deceived by appellant, his wife Zenaida Caures and his sister Rose Reyes into believing that there were jobs waiting for them in a factory in Taiwan. Because of the assurances of the three accused, each of the private complainants handed them P13,000 as placement fee. Some of them even borrowed money at usurious interests in order to raise the amount. It turned out, however, that the promise was just a ploy to extract money from private complainants. All in all, we find that the five counts of estafa were adequately proven. On this point, we cite the ruling of the trial court, with which we completely agree: For the Accused to be liable, under the aforequoted provision of the Revised Penal Code, the confluence of the following essential requisites must be established by the Prosecution: 1/25/2016 12:35 AM