4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Accused-appellant contends that all she did was to refer complainants to Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza. However, under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment includes "referral," which is defined as the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau.[26] In these cases, accusedappellant did more than just make referrals. She actively and directly enlisted complainants for supposed employment abroad, even promising them jobs as seamen, and collected moneys from them. The failure of complainants to present receipts to evidence payments made to accusedappellant is not fatal to the prosecution case. The presentation of the receipts of payments is not necessary for the conviction of accused-appellant. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonies and affidavits that the accused-appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.[27] In these cases, complainants could not present receipts for their payment because accused-appellant assured them she would take care of their money. It must be remembered that the trial court's appreciation of complainants' testimonies deserves the highest respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility. [28] In these cases, complainants' testimonies, to the effect that they paid money to accused-appellant and her companions, Domingo and Baloran, because the latter promised them overseas employment, were positive, straightforward, and categorical. They maintained their testimonies despite the lengthy and gruelling cross-examination by the defense counsel. They have not been shown to have any ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. Naive, simple-minded, and even gullible as they may have been, it is precisely for people like complainants that the law was made. Accordingly, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[29] In contrast, accused-appellant's defense is merely denial. Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial, being negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses.[30] Here, complainants positively identified accused-appellant as one of those who represented that they could be deployed for overseas work upon payment of the fees. Accused-appellant claims that she herself had to borrow P15,000.00 from Jenny Tolentino, guaranteed by Maria Luz Leongson, to defray her own and her son's application expenses. The claim has no merit. Maria Luz Leongson, who is Felixberto's wife, testified that accused-appellant sought her help to guarantee a loan to pay the tuition fees of her daughter and the rent of the apartment in which she and her family were staying,[31] and not to finance her and her son's overseas job applications. Accused-appellant likewise testified that she paid in cash a total of P36,500.00 in three installments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house, and P10,000.00 and P16,500.00 to Baloran, at the Mandarin Hotel. This testimony cannot be deemed worthy of belief. When cross-examined, accused-appellant could not remember the dates when she allegedly made these payments. For someone who was jobless[32] and looking for employment, it is very doubtful that she would pay considerable sums of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52128 9/14