6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly LOMBOY with respect to this case when they were cross-examined by the defense counsel. Truth be told, the extortion charge against LOMBOY is merely being utilized by DELIA to lend some credence to her defense of frame-up. To Our mind however, the complaint filed against DELIA cannot be taken as a mere act of retaliation on the part of JOEL, MARVIN, ROLLY and REYNALDO, JR. since it is apparent that the extortion case against LOMBOY came only after private complainants charged her with illegal recruitment. Verily, the lack of any connection between LOMBOY and private complainants is a tell-tale sign that the concept of frame-up was but an eleventh-hour defense of DELIA. For another, LOMBOY's actuations must be taken as a distinct event from which the extortion which DELIA claims, was rooted. Without any strong evidence to connect private complainants to LOMBOY's alleged act of extortion, this Court cannot simply brush aside the evidence presented for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale during the trial on the sole ground that the arresting officer was involved in extortion. This is especially true since each private complainant narrated with particularity the details of their recruitment with respect to what was promised by and the amounts paid to DELIA thereby placing beyond doubt that the latter was indeed engaged in recruiting them for overseas work without any lawful authority to do so. Trite to state, when the credibility of the witness is in issue, the trial court's assessment is accorded great weight unless it is shown that it has overlooked a certain fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. Here, We find no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court since the totality of the evidence supports DELIA's conviction for the crime charged.[13] We affirm the findings by the CA. It is settled that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings. This is because the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses by observing their demeanor at the time they testify. The absence of any showing by the accused that the trial court had overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, could alter the result of the case, or that the assessment by the trial court had been arbitrary, now impels the Court to give due deference to the trial court's determination of the credibility of the witnesses and other evidence.[14] In her defense, the accused-appellant tendered denial and frame up.[15] Such defenses contrasted with the positive and firm assertions of the complainants pointing to her as the person who had induced them to part with their money in exchange for their being employed abroad. Denial and frame up were negative by nature, and, as such, did not prevail over the affirmative assertions of fact by the Prosecution's witnesses. Indeed, such defenses are usually regarded by the courts as inherently weak by virtue of their elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63739 5/10