5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Further, illegal recruitment is deemed done in large scale and is considered as an offense involving economic sabotage if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The Court finds that the prosecution, through its witnesses, was able to prove accusedappellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Section 6(l) of RA 8042 as to Jovy and Cherry. Section 6(l) refers to the failure to actually deploy the worker without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). This provision requires independent evidence from DOLE, such as the absence of a proper job order, to establish the reason for non-deployment.[52] Undisputedly, Jovy was not able to leave for work to Canada or US. Further, the Office of the Solicitor General correctly argued in its Brief for the Appellee[53] before the CA that the prosecution offered as evidence the POEA Certification[54] dated May 25, 2011 stating that New Hope and Jani King, which were based in Canada, were not registered with JASIA or any other licensed recruitment agencies.[55] On the other hand, accused-appellant alleged in her testimony that Cherry's employer was New Hope.[56] However, this allegation is also negated by the POEA Certification dated May 25, 2011. While there was no testimony on the POEA Certification, such does not negate its probative value. In People v. Banzales,[57] the Court ruled that a POEA certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of official duty; hence, it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein pursuant to Section 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[58] Further, public documents are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Consequently, the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary. [59] Here, the POEA Certification dated May 25, 2011, being a public document, is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Unfortunately, accused-appellant failed to counter the contents of the certification. The Court also finds that the prosecution, through its witnesses, was able to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Section 6(m) of RA 8042, having committed the act against the five private complainants. Here, as correctly ruled by the RTC, the prosecution established that: (1) as admitted by accused-appellant, she received monies from the five private complainants with the understanding that these will be for the processing of their employment abroad; (2) the five private complainants were not deployed for work abroad; and (3) accused-appellant failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants after they were not deployed.[60] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66373 9/17