6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Hence, this appeal, with appellant asseverating that the trial court erred in convicting him on the bases of the incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and in not giving credence to his testimony.[17] The inquiry thus boils down to the question of credibility, and on whether or not his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant argues that the testimonies of the complainants are not in accord with human nature and experience. He would like to impress upon this Court that there had been a mistake of identity, and that it was an absurd situation wherein complainants supposedly knew him by different names when he introduced himself only on a single occasion.[18] This argument is palpably devoid of merit. It is settled that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall be given weight and the highest degree of respect by this Court.[19] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility, as what is important is that they have positively identified the accused as the culprit.[20] Thus, appellant’s name or alias is inconsequential as long as his identity is established to be that of the person identified in open court. This Court is fully aware of the practice of recruiters of using fictitious names or aliases to conceal their true identities in order to evade identification and escape liability. As correctly observed by the trial court: “The prosecution has clearly and convincingly established through the three witnesses that accused NESTOR MAÑOZCA was the same Nestor Santiago and Manolito Santiago who recruited them in February of 1989. There could be no mistake in their identification of the accused because of the many times that they had talked and dealt with the accused. All their confrontations were not brief but were of such length as to cause a clear picture of the accused in their minds. The three would naturally commit his face in their memory after entrusting him with big amounts of money. This erases all doubts on their identification of the accused despite not having seen him for a year.”[21] Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witness should be determined, not by resort to individual words or phrases alone, but by the whole impression or effect of what has been said or done.[22] The actuations of appellant in requiring the complainants to submit the necessary documents, accompanying them to a clinic for medical examination and getting the results, and using airline procedures for checking reservations, gave complainants the impression that appellant was capable of providing them with work abroad, which is basically the essence of the crime of illegal recruitment. His deceitful acts were, however, exposed by the certification issued by the POEA that petitioner was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.[23] It is settled that the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are that (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers, as elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34555 5/9