6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[43] All three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt. To overthrow the finding of guilt for this charge, accused-appellant Bautista questions the admissibility of the POEA Certification which stated that he had no authority or license to recruit for overseas employment, since said document was not authenticated in court by the signatory thereto.[44] Accused-appellant Bautista here misleads. On the contrary, as found by the trial court, the veracity and probative import of the POEA Certification was already stipulated on by all parties involved, including accusedappellant Bautista, to wit: xxx The supposed testimony of Johnson Bolivar, the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) representative, was dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on his supposed testimony, as follows: a) that he is a bonafide employee of the POEA; b) that he is presently assigned at the licensing branch of the POEA; c) that he was duly authorized to appear as representative of Miss Liberty Casco, officer-incharge; d) that a certification was duly issued by the POEA regarding the non-issuance of authority to accused Arleth Buenconsejo, Rosamel Cara de Guzman and Sagisag Atlas Paul Bautista; and e) that the certification forms part of the official record of the POEA non-licensing branch.[45] Clearly, accused-appellant Bautista may not now turn back on their stipulations and question the admissibility of a crucial document, the due issuance of which he stipulated and agreed on. In addition, the probative value of the POEA Certification is covered by Section 44 of the Rules of Evidence, which provides that entries in official records are prima facie proof of the facts stated therein.[46] Said POEA Certification, as stipulated on with respect to its due issuance, sufficiently established that accused-appellant Bautista and his co-accused were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Clearly, as testified to by the private complainants, the accused nevertheless engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite authority, and were therefore properly charged with illegal recruitment.[47] Accused-appellant Bautista's reliance on the Equipoise Rule[48] is likewise misplaced. The Equipoise Rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. This Rule cannot find application in accused-appellant Bautista's case because, contrary to his submission, the evidence submitted and evaluated by both lower courts mount high against accused-appellant Bautista's denial and ineffective and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66754 15/20