7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We find that the inconsistencies cited by appellant are immaterial to adversely affect their testimonies. To our mind, these are minor details and collateral matters which do not affect the weight and substance of their declarations. Nor do they touch on the essential elements of the crime charged. "It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testimony."[27] Verily, what is important is that private complainants have positively identified appellant as the one who made misrepresentations of his capacity to secure and facilitate for them overseas employment, and induced them to part with their money upon the false promise of employment abroad. In contrast, appellant offered only his defense of denial and alibi which we hold to be unavailing. It is settled in this jurisdiction that "greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime."[28] Moreover, a denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. Thus, as between appellant's alibi and bare denials, and the categorical and positive statements of the private complainants, the latter must prevail.[29] It bears emphasis at this point that the fact that no receipt was issued by appellant is not fatal to the prosecution's cause, more so in this case where the respective testimonies of private complainants clearly narrated appellant's involvement in illegal recruitment activities. The case of People v. Domingo[30] is instructive, viz.: That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged receipt of money for the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free him of liability. For even if at the time appellant was promising employment no cash was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities, since Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for illegal recruitment.[31] (Underscoring supplied) There is no question at this point that both the RTC and the CA found that appellant had engaged in illegal recruitment activities. In this regard, we have consistently held that factual findings of the trial court, especially when the same have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, are deemed binding and conclusive.[32] This is because "trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed first-hand their demeanor and manner of testifying under grueling examination."[33] While this Court may revise the factual findings of the RTC on the notion that they were erroneous, unfounded, unreliable, or conflicted with the findings of fact of the CA,[34] this notion, however, has not been demonstrated by appellant in the instant case. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66798 8/12