Bayani lost interest in going to Canada. Bayani saw accused-appellant again when she could no longer find Bolilla.xiv[14] She averred that she met Florence Juan only once during a birthday party at No. 34 Honeymoon Road. They did not talk to each other, for during this party, accused-appellant had a heated argument with Melinda Cadio. This was because Cadio and Bolilla wanted to send the relatives of the former to Hong Kong, using the visa that would be secured by accused-appellant. Upon reaching Hong Kong, someone would procure jobs for them. Accused-appellant rejected the arrangement. She denied collecting any money from Juan. The check delivered to Juan as payment for her placement fee was a demand draft purchased by Bolilla.xv[15] She declared that Josephine Sotero asked assistance from her as she wanted to go to Hong Kong as a tourist. Allegedly, her sister-in law was waiting for her in Hong Kong. Accused-appellant collected seven thousand pesos (P7,000.00) from her for the plane ticket. She crumpled the receipt written by the husband of Melinda Cadio when she read that said amount was partial payment for the placement fee for employment in Hong Kong.xvi[16] Accused-appellant explained that she transferred residence when her husband came because they could no longer be accommodated at their previous house. They moved to a bigger place in Asin Road. In convicting the accused-appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, the trial court disbelieved her claims that she was merely assisting the applicants to go abroad as tourists and that the fees collected from them were her professional fees as an agent of Dynasty Travel Agency. It observed that no evidence was presented to prove that Dynasty Travel Agency exists, except for accused-appellants bare assertions. The trial court did not also give credence to her claim that the applicants were going abroad as tourists. It noted that two of the applicants are plain employees in the Baguio Health Center. The rest were even looking for overseas jobs. It also stressed the fact that accused-appellant disappeared and transferred residence when she failed to deploy the applicants for overseas work.xvii[17] In convicting accused-appellant of estafa the trial court pointed out that she employed false pretenses by representing herself as having the power, capacity and authority to deploy workers abroad. In this appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors of the trial court: I THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT. II