G.R. No. 181475 5 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/181475.htm and 1247-M-2001, accused is hereby ACQUITTED for lack of evidence. SO ORDERED. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, appellant maintained that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, no receipts to show that he actually received money from private complainant having been submitted in evidence. And he faulted the trial court for failing to give weight to Cabigaos retraction. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision by the challenged Decision dated September 28, 2007, holding that the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the complaining witnesses sufficiently supported the trial courts conclusion that appellant undertook recruitment activities beginning September up to December 1999 in Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan without the license therefor, and failed to deploy those he recruited. Respecting the non-presentation of receipts of payment to appellant in consideration of the promised jobs, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts ruling that the same had no bearing on his culpability in light of the categorical assertions of the complaining witnesses that appellant was the one who recruited them. As for Cabigaos recantation, the appellate court found it immaterial as was the other complainants failure to prosecute their claims. The appellate court held that the mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony and that, in any event, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that at least three were illegally recruited by the accused - Cambay, Ondra, Aguilar and Ma. Leah. As for the estafa cases, the appellate court held that the elements constituting the crime, as penalized under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, were sufficiently established, viz: Appellant deceived the complainants by assuring them of employment abroad provided that they submit certain documents and pay the required placement fee; complainants paid appellant the amount he asked on account of appellants representations which turned out to be false; and complainants suffered damages when appellant failed to return the amounts they paid and the papers they submitted, despite demand. Hence, the present appeal, appellant raising the same contentions as those he raised in the appellate court. 1/26/2016 3:54 PM