This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Besides, the only defense offered by appellant against the allegations against her was mere denial, an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal testimonies of complainants. Bare denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them, cannot sway judgment. They are self-serving statements which can easily be put forward.[44] It is inconceivable that private complainants would be mistaken in their claim that it was appellant who recruited them considering that it was she who personally talked with them on several occasions and received the sums of money for which she issued receipts.[45] It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime, or even a casual acquaintance for that matter, that would take the latter's liberty and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and assuage the frustration of their dreams to go abroad.[46] | |||||
|
2009-06-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.[39] | |||||