People vs Villas : 112180 : August 15, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Div... 8 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/112180.htm The accused-appellant did not object to the admissibility of this documentary exhibit[32]; neither did she controvert it.[33] Third Element Regarding the third element -- that there were three or more victims -- the four complainants testified that Appellant Villas made them believe that she had the authority to recruit workers for employment in Canada; in fact, relying on her misrepresentations, they submitted to her their application papers and processing fees. The positive and credible testimonies of the four complainants are sufficient to qualify appellants crime as illegal recruitment in large scale.[34] Non-Presentation of Receipt Neither is there merit in the contention of the defense that appellant should be exonerated for failure of the prosecution to present any receipt proving that private complainants paid her anything. The defense argues that a receipt is the best evidence to prove delivery of money and the absence thereof shows that no payment was made.[35] This argument is not novel. The Court has previously ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. In People vs. Pabalan,[36] this Court ruled: x x x the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in order to prove the existence of recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses. The private complainants have convincingly testified that the accused enticed them to apply and, in actual fact, received payments from them. And to these testimonies, the trial court accorded credence. On the other hand, appellant has not shown any reason to justify a modification or reversal of the trial courts finding. Lastly, appellant asserts that the trial court, in assessing the evidence for the prosecution, should not have included the counter-affidavit of the appellant which was not formally offered as evidence. Appellant impugns the part of the Decision of the court a quo which reads: The declaration of the accused that the charge was filed against her because she refused to agree to the proposal of the spouses Mr. & Mrs. Mortos is implausible to believe and does not deserve credence. Her counter-affidavit submitted belies such accusation for there is nothing in that counter-affidavit which states that the spouses Mortos proposed to her to recruit workers in order to make money and that she outrightly refused to agree to the said proposal. Such declaration is a clear afterthough [sic] conceived by the accused who could not concoct any other plausible defense to exculpate her from criminal liability.[37] Even if this Court disregards the said counter-affidavit, there is still no sufficient reason to reverse the findings and the conclusion reached by the trial court. The prosecutions case can stand even without the counter-affidavit. The conviction of the appellant is anchored on the 1/24/2016 11:04 PM