The appellant seasonably filed her notice of appeal. In her Appellants Brief,vii[7] she imputes upon the trial court the commission of this single error, to wit: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [HER] GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN A LARGE SCALE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. She anchors her appeal chiefly on the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complainants. She claims that it creates serious doubts as to her liability and proves that she was not engaged in recruitment activities. Finally, she alleges that the POEA certification is a mere fabrication and should not have been given any probative value; and, in any event, the prosecution failed to prove that she had no license or authority to recruit workers. The Office of the Solicitor General supports the trial courts decision and prays that the assailed decision be affirmed in toto. The appeal is without merit. The Affidavit of Desistance deserves scant consideration. In the first place, it was executed after the complainants testified under oath and in open court that they were offered job placements abroad and were made to pay placement or processing fees. In the second place, the affidavit did not expressly repudiate their testimony in court on the recruitment activities of the appellant. In fact, the appellant admitted that the complaining witnesses executed it after she had paid them back the amounts they had given her.viii[8] The affidavit was more of an afterthought arising from personal consideration of pity. We have said before that courts should not attach persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought.ix[9] Moreover, it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their mind for one reason or another, for such rule would make solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.x[10] It must always be remembered that a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State. To the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish crimes. While there may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense, such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty.xi[11] Finally, the appellant failed to refute the testimony of Barangay Captain Calara that the complainants filed the case against her because she recruited them and later reneged on her assurances. The challenge against the POEA certification (Exh. A) that the appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment must likewise fail.