6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Hence, the instant appeal. In this Court's February 6, 2012 Resolution,[12] We noted the accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) respective Manifestations stating in essence that they are dispensing with their supplemental briefs, and thus, adopting their respective briefs which they filed with the CA. The Issue THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA.[13] The appeal lacks merit. On the one hand, accused-appellant maintains that she could not be held liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment and Estafa since she never made any promise or gave the impression of having the ability to send the complainants abroad. She avers that the cash vouchers and letters acknowledging receipt of complainants' payments were not signed by her, but by a certain Manzie Delos Reyes. She likewise avers that she did not engage in recruitment activities as defined by law since All Care Travel & Consultancy (Philippines) is engaged in visa applications. She further avers that she did not know complainants Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, and Bagay, Jr. On the other hand, the OSG counters[14] that the RTC correctly convicted the accusedappellant of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, the prosecution having adduced sufficient evidence to established her guilt thereof beyond reasonable doubt. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements:[15] (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042;[16] (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. These elements are obtaining in this case. First, the RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken recruitment activity when she promised the private complainants overseas employment for a fee. This factual finding was affirmed by the CA. As consistently adhered to by this Court, the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record.[17] And when his findings have been affirmed by the CA, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[18] As correctly pointed out by the CA: xxx xxx xxx Appellant, in fact, had stipulated at pre-trial that not only did she know private complainants, she also received money from them for their elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63200 5/12