People vs Buemio : 114011 : December 16, 1996 : J. Kapunan : First D... 8 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/dec1996/114011.htm the aforequoted handwritten receipt she signed shows that the same amount was for plane tickets & hotel accommodations. Moreover, if indeed it is true that the amount she demanded and collected from the complainants were mere processing fees needed to secure travel papers, then she would have received them upon official receipts of the travel agency, in its office and at the appropriate office hours. The evidence proven, however, shows that two of the receipts were prepared by a complainants wife while another appears to be in appellants own handwriting on a yellow ruled pad paper, and that she received various amounts in places other than her office including her own residence, and after office hours. In one instance, a transaction even occurred at midnight in her own home. Appellant also claims that the visa applications of the complainants she had presented in evidenced prove that they were not as seekers for jobs overseas. This stretches judicial credulity to the limits. The four complainants who testified for the prosecution could not have afforded travel abroad, much more as tourist. Cecilia Baas and the three, Principe, Villanueva and Gutierrez, were all unemployed. Neither was there proof that complainants had sources of income which they could rely on even if unemployed or low-salaried. Furthermore, as regards Cecilia Baas, the use of the name Pacita Garcia in the passport given her was not even satisfactorily explained by the appellant. It is of judicial notice, however, that fake passports are the usual tools of illegal recruiters. That appellant even accompanied some complainants abroad on the pretext that she would secure their plane tickets there does not help her case any. Instead of bolstering her claim that she was merely helping the complainants secure travel papers, that story instead undermines the alleged legality of her activities. She did not actually have to go abroad to secure tickets and travel documents since these may be obtained just as easily within this country. The rule, therefore, that for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of [35] mankind can proved as probable under the circumstances, finds meaning in this case. Upon the evidence presented and on record, there is therefore no reason to disturb the trial courts conclusion that appellant violated the law against illegal recruitment in large scale. We note, however, that the trial court omitted Cecilia Baas in its decision. Since Cecilia Baas is named one of the complainants in the amended information for illegal recruitment and who testified in court to prove her charges, her case should have been duly considered. The trial court stated that the complainants executed affidavits of desistance except [36] Principe, Villanueva and Gutierez. This, perhaps, explains why the trial court did not even mention the testimony of Cecilia Baas in its decision. However, the records show that the only the following executed affidavits of desistance: Lito B. Camora (Exh. 8), Roel B. Perez (Exh. 9), Magdalena P. Arizala and Fe P. Domagtory (Exh. 10), and Eduardo P. Prudenciado, Leonilo D. [37] Arganda and Rose V. Flores (Exh. 11). Of these seven persons, Camora, Arizala, Prudenciado, Arganda and Flores filed complaints for estafa against appellant while Perez and Domagtory did not. Affidavits of desistance, however, may not exonerate an accused from criminal liability, especially when the evidence already adduced suffices to convict. In People v. [38] Romero, the Court holds: The fact that complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance does not serve to exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability insofar as the case for illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks with disfavor the dropping of criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant, particularly where the commission of the offense, as is in the case, is duly supported by documentary evidence. Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when it is executed as an afterthought. It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies 1/20/2016 5:32 PM