against him. He brands the testimony given by the prosecution witnesses as being inconsistent, poorly chorused and inadequately coached and rues the fact that the trial court has merely considered the "inconsistencies" to be mere lapses in memory and minor discrepancies. This invocation is indeed one fine way of putting up, in reality, the defense of alibi for, in this so-called issue of "territorial jurisdiction over the cases," appellant actually is saying that he could not have met the complainants in Baguio City for the latter's possible deployment abroad because it would not be possible for him to be in two places at the same time. The defense presented Caroline Castillo to state that appellant was never registered at the Leisure Lodge in Baguio City. Such fact, even if true, did not necessarily mean that appellant was not in Baguio City, nor at the lodge, at the time in question. Caroline herself said that she was no longer assigned at the Leisure Lodge from October to December 1992 and that, although she still supervised the front desk clerk, she was not always physically present thereat which could explain why she might have failed to recognize appellant. She admitted, moreover, that the registration of guests in the hotel registry did not require the presentation of identification cards and that the front desk clerk could instead merely rely on the name given by the guest. Appellants own testimony to establish an alibi is itself feeble. The fact that his sick mother has been confined at the Philippine Heart Center during the "crucial months" of October to December 1992 could not have rendered highly unlikely, certainly not at all impossible, his taking a trip to Baguio City and briefly staying thereat. Denial and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence bearing no real weight in law and jurisprudence.xii[12] Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused not only because it is inherently unreliable but also because it can easily be fabricated.xiii[13] It is practically worthless in the face of positive identification of the accused to be the perpetrator of a crime.xiv[14] To be convincing, the alibi should preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.xv[15] Appellant has not disputed the fact that he had no previous quarrel with any of the complainants. It is well-settled that if the defense fails to prove any nefarious motive on the part of one who testifies against an accused, the presumption is that the witness has not been so moved and that his testimony should thereby be accorded faith and credit.xvi[16] Most importantly, when an appeal knocks on the issue of credibility of witnesses, the chances are, unless strong compelling reasons dictate otherwise, the appellate court would rely, rather than not, on the evaluation made by the trial court which is in an excellent position to do that assessment. The Court must thus take issue against appellant's contention that he did not undertake recruitment activities in Baguio City. By procuring workers in Baguio City and promising them employment overseas, appellant has maintained a recruitment activity thereat. It is immaterial that acts subsequent to the procurement of workers, such as receiving