promised her a good paying job abroad. According to her, there was no reason for her to be suspicious of the identity of the accused as well as of his representations since he was a good friend of her cousin Kennedy Hapones. Like the two (2) other complainants, Nolie Bongbonga averred that the accused through misrepresentations persuaded her to give himP4,000.00 for the processing of certain travel documents. As proof thereof she presented a receipt dated 5 October 1998 purportedly signed and issued by the accused. Accused Alex Baytic, testifying in his defense, not only denied the accusations against him but also insisted that it was actually Kennedy Hapones, a new acquaintance, who was the illegal recruiter. He recounted that sometime in November 1999, he went to the house of Hapones who was trying to recruit him for deployment abroad. According to the accused, Hapones told him to prepare P250,000.00 although the former eventually accepted an initial advance payment of P4,500.00. He again met Hapones the following month when the latter told him and a group of other applicants, including Ofelia Bongbonga, that their requirements were ready. That was the last time he saw Hapones who, he later learned, had already left for abroad. He was suspected of being in cahoots with Hapones because whenever the latter and the applicants talked, Hapones would always point at him, although he never had the opportunity to know what Hapones had actually said to them. But the trial court sustained the complaining witnesses and gave more credence to their straightforward and consistent testimonies. It opined that all the essential requisites of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale as defined in Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code[2] were present - x x x x The accused made representations to each of the complainants that he could send them to Italy as janitor/utility aides through direct hiring, which constitutes a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses that they were actually recruited for overseas employment by the accused and were induced by him to part with their money retain undiminished probative worth and weight. The receipts (Exhibits A, C, and D) respectively issued to the complainants are sufficient proofs of his guilt as against accuseds mere denial of the signatures appearing therein. The modus operandi of the accused was well established by the corroborative testimonies of the witnesses. [3] Accused-appellant now prays that the Court to take a second hard look at his conviction in view of the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He takes exception to the finding of the trial court that all the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are present. He argues that the first element, i.e., the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, defined under Art. 13, or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34, of the Labor Code, is not present because he did not solicit any money from the complainants nor did he promise them employment in Italy. The truth of the matter, according to him, is that he himself was victimized by Kennedy Hapones, the real illegal recruiter. He