6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The protest of the accused-appellant is untenable. Dahab's supposed recantation to the effect that he had only sought the assistance of the accused-appellant for his medical examination by no means weakened or diminished the Prosecution's case against her. Its being made after he had lodged his complaint against her with the PNP-CIDG (in which he supplied the details of his transactions with her) and after he had testified against her in court directly incriminating her rendered it immediately suspect. It should not be more weighty than his first testimony against her which that was replete with details. Its being the later testimony of the Dahab did not necessarily cancel his first testimony on account of the possibility of its being obtained by coercion, intimidation, fraud, or other means to distort or bend the truth. Recantation by a witness is nothing new, for it is a frequent occurrence in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, it is not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the mere afterthought of the witness. To be given any value or weight, it should still be subjected to the same tests for credibility in addition to its being subject of the rule that it be received with caution.[27] The criminal proceedings in which sworn testimony has been given by the recanting witness would be rendered a mockery, and put at the mercy of the unscrupulous witness if such testimony could be easily negated by the witness's subsequent inconsistent declaration. The result is to leave without value not only the sanctity of the oath taken but also the solemn rituals and safeguards of the judicial trial. If only for emphasis, we reiterate that it is "a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply because the witness who has given it later on changed his mind for one reason or another, for such a rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses."[28] II Estafa The conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in large scale did not preclude her personal liability for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of subjecting her to double jeopardy. The elements of estafa as charged are, namely: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[29] In contrast, the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, as indicated earlier, requires different elements. Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and convicting the accused-appellant for both crimes considering that they were entirely distinct from each other not only from their being punished under different statutes but also from their elements being different. The active representation by the accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa. Her representation induced the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage that is the second element of the estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's affirmance of her guilt elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61699 8/13