EVIDENCE: RETRACTION OF TESTIMONY BY A WITNESS

Courts do not generally look with favor on any retraction or recanted testimony, for it could have been secured by considerations other than to tell the truth and would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration, but like any other testimony the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution (Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 690, 701-702). 

x x x  The mere fact that a witness says that what he had declared is false and what he now says is true, is not sufficient ground for concluding that the previous testimony is false. No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credulity. The rule is that a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement (Section 13, Rule 132, Rules of Court): not that a previous testimony is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same is false (People v. Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 558, 572) (KAUNLARAN LENDING INVESTORS, INC. and LELIA CHUASY vs. LORETA UY, GR. No. 154974, February 4, 2008, 2nd Division, Carpio Morales, J.).