6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly have the same effect as if the witness had testified to the facts. Such testimony the party is free to contradict."[11] The distinction, though cogent, is unfortunately inapplicable to the case at bar. Conveniently omitted from the appellant's reply brief is the ensuing statement made by the court after counsel for the accused, Atty. Ulep agreed to the stipulation proposed by the prosecution, to wit: Atty. Ulep (counsel for the accused): Agreed, Your Honor. Court The prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate/admit that from the record of the POEA Licensing and Regulation Office, Dept. of Labor and Employment, accused Cristina Hernandez/Phil. etc., Ass. x x x is neither licensed nor authorized by that office to recruit workers overseas abroad and that if the duly authorized representative from the POEA Administration is to take the witness stand, he will confirm to this fact as borne by the records. [12] (Underscoring supplied .) From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution and the defense counsel stipulated on two things: that "x x x from the record of the POEA, x x x accused Cristina Hernandez, Phil. etc. Ass. x x x is neither licensed nor authorized by that office to recruit workers for overseas abroad and that if the duly authorized representative from the POEA Administratin (sic) is to take the witness stand, he will confirm to this fact x x x."[13]The claim that the lower court mistakenly interpreted defense counsel's acquiescence to the prosecution's proposed stipulation as an admission of nonpossession of the requisite POEA license or authority is belied by the fact that after the above enunciation by the court, no objection was interposed by defense counsel. Appellant further contends that granting arguendo that defense counsel had in fact agreed to the above stipulation of facts, the same is null and void for being contrary to the well-established rule that a stipulation of facts is not allowed in criminal cases. To bolster this contention, appellant cited the consistent ruling of this Court on the matter. Thus, as held in the case of U.S. vs. Donato:[14] "Agreements between attorneys for the prosecution and for the defense in criminal cases, by which it is stipulated that certain witnesses, if present, would testify to certain facts prevent a review of the evidence by the Supreme Court and are in violation of the law."[15] The above ruling was reiterated in a subsequent case where the accused was convicted solely on the basis of an agreement between the fiscal and the counsel for the accused that certain witnesses would testify confirming the complaint in all its parts. In reversing the judgment of conviction, this Court held that: "It is neither proper nor permissible to consider a case closed, or to render judgment therein, by virtue of an agreement entered into between the provincial fiscal and the counsel for the accused with reference to facts, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33888 5/13