The testimony of the four complaining witnesses are found to be credible and reliable observing that they answered the questions propounded by the prosecutor and the defense counsel in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and they remained consistent, calm and cool on cross-examination. That even with the rigid cross-examination conducted by the defense counsel the more their testimonies became firmer and clearer that they were victims of false pretenses or fraudulent acts of the accused. The herein accused falsely pretended to have possessed power, influence and qualifications to secure employment as domestic helpers abroad. And because of her fraudulent acts accused was able to collect from the four victims the sum of P8,000.00 each [Exh. A, C, E, F (4)]. Verily, the accused admitted that she managed a consultancy firm under the business name of DCS Service Management and the nature of her work is to recruit domestic helpers for employment abroad. She further admitted having received the amount of P8,000.00 from each of the complainants as processing fee, although she is shifting responsibility to a certain Mrs. Ganura to whom she delivered the sum of P25,000.00 (Exh. 1, 1-A). She miserably failed to present this Mrs. Ganura to testify in this regard despite all efforts exerted by this court, hence, such assertion of the accused is disregarded, not being reliable. The fact remains that it was she who transacted with the complainants, and that accused is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment (Exhibit G).xxxii[32] While it may be true that the questioned decision failed to state the specific provisions of law violated by accused-appellant, it however clearly stated that the crime charged was Illegal Recruitment. It discussed the facts comprising the elements of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale that was charged in the information, and accordingly rendered a verdict and imposed the corresponding penalty. The dispositive portion of the decision quoted earlier, clearly states that appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge in the information. As earlier stated, the charge in the information referred to by the decision could mean only that of illegal recruitment in large scale and not to any other offense. The situation would have been altogether different and in violation of the constitutional mandate if the penalty imposed was for illegal recruitment based on established facts constituting simple illegal recruitment only. As it is, the trial courts omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of law violated, is not in derogation of the constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court. The trial courts factual findings based on credible prosecution evidence supporting the allegations in the information and its imposition of the corresponding penalty imposed by the law on such given facts are therefore sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. This Court agrees with the trial court that the prosecution evidence has shown beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant engaged in unlawful recruitment and placement activities. Accusedappellant promised the four complainants employment as domestic helpers in Kuwait. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as referring to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad whether for profit or not; provided that any person or entity which in any manner offers or promises for a fee