6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the RTC ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established that the two elements of illegal recruitment concurred, namely: (1) that accused-appellant Bautista did not have the required license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and (2) that accused-appellant Bautista nevertheless undertook (a) recruitment and placement activity as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or otherwise (b) any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the same Code. Specifically, it found that the first element was established by no less than the POEA Certification dated October 7, 2008 that accused-appellant Bautista and his co-accused were not licensed or otherwise authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.[21] For the second element, the RTC also found that, as the private complainants consistently testified to, they all gave various sums of money with the promise of overseas deployment as consideration, and that accused-appellant Bautista and his agency, contraiy to this promise and representation, failed to deploy all of them and further failed to return the money the private complainants parted with.[22] The RTC further dismissed accused-appellant Bautista's argument that he was a mere administrative employee and therefore could not be held guilty of the agency's illegal recruitment, holding instead that an employee of a company found to have engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as a principal together with his employer for as long as the employee could be proven to have actively and consciously participated in the illegal recruitment, as accused-appellant Bautista was accordingly found. Aggrieved, accused-appellant Bautista filed an appeal to the CA, arguing that the prosecution failed to overthrow the presumption of innocence in his favor.[23] He submitted that with respect to the charges of estafa against him were merely founded on the offense of an unfulfilled promise which was not attended by any deceitful or fraudulent misrepresentation.[24] Accused-appellant Bautista argued that his act of issuing provisional receipts in favor of the private complainants was merely ministerial and part of his job as a clerk of his co-accused's agency, and maintained that the money given by the private complainants were under the control of his co-accused De Guzman.[25] He countered that the RTC failed to appreciate conspiracy between him and his co-accused, so that De Guzman's act of running away with the private complainants' money could not be imputed against him, and the element of damage in the crime of estafa is not present. Accused-appellant Bautista further argued that with respect to the charge of illegal recruitment against him, he questioned the proof of the first element, i.e., the absence of the license or authority to undertake recruitment for overseas employment. Specifically, he challenges the probative value of the POEA Certification, given that the person who signed the same, one Melchor B. Dizon, was not presented in court for purposes of authentication of the said certification.[26] For this reason, accusedappellant Bautista argued that the contents of the POEA Certification should have been considered hearsay and inadmissible in evidence.[27] Accused-appellant Bautista also questioned the evidentiary merit of the POEA Certification, and argued that the same only stated that he and his co-accused were https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66754 11/20