G.R. No. 181475 8 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/181475.htm [8] received with caution. For a testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly, least of all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse of considerable time. In the case at bar, the Affidavit of Recantation was executed three years after the complaint was filed. It is thus not unreasonable to consider his retraction an afterthought to deny its [9] probative value. AT ALL EVENTS, and even with Cabigaos recantation, the Court finds that the prosecution evidence consisting of the testimonies of the four other complainants, whose credibility has not been impaired, has not been overcome. As to the conviction of appellant for two counts of estafa, it is well established that a person may be charged and convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. People v. [10] Comila, enlightens: x x x The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. x x x (Emphasis supplied) Appellant, who did not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy, misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the capacity to send them abroad for employment. This misrepresentation, which induced the complaining witnesses to part off with their money for placement and medical fees, constitutes estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice 1/26/2016 3:54 PM