Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY “LAURO” DOMINGO

Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY “LAURO” DOMINGO

           Appellant Larry Domingo (Domingo) was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and two (2) counts of Estafa before Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Domingo, denied all the accusations against him and claimed that he was a driver hired by the real recruiter, Gimeno, whom he met inside the Victory Liner Bus bound for Manila in September, 2000 Domingo likewise presented as witnesses private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo who corroborated his claim that it was Gimeno who actually recruited them, and that the filing of the complaint against appellant was a desperate attempt on their part to get even because Gimeno could not be located. Prosecution witness Simeon Cabigao (Cabigao) testified that he was among those who were recruited by Domingo, but he later on recanted his testimony. By Joint Decision, the trial court found Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and of 2 counts of Estafa.

        On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Domingo maintained that the trial court erred for failing to give weight to Cabigao‘s retraction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court on all accounts. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the retraction of Cabigao should be given weight

HELD:

That one of the original complaining witnesses, Cabigao, later recanted, via an affidavit and his testimony in open court, does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other testimony, the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be 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 probative value.

At all events, and even with Cabigao‘s recantation, the Supreme 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.