(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. [9] Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as follows: xxx [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers [which] includes referrals, contact services, promis[es] or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the second element considering that no representative from the POEA was presented in court to testify as to the authenticity of the Certificate issued by the POEA that accusedappellant was an unlicensed illegal recruiter. The challenge against the POEA certification that the accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment must fail. A POEA certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty; hence, it is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated pursuant to Section 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[10] Public documents are entitled to a presumption of regularity, consequently, the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary. [11] Accusedappellant did not even bother to allege the contrary as she admitted in open court that she was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers.[12] Accused-appellant also argues that a close scrutiny of the testimonies of private complainants reveals that accused-appellant did not recruit all of the complainants for overseas employment. According to accused-appellant, the testimony of Domingo Mariano reveals that it was Elizabeth Bernal who recruited him for overseas employment; while the testimonies of Eva Amada, Rizza Oliva and Angelo Ballester disclose that it is Ma. Concepcion Dionisio (sister of Eva Amada) who recruited them for overseas employment. This argument of the defense unduly strains the credulity of this Court. The fact that Elizabeth Bernal, herself a victim of accused-appellant, and Macon Dionisio introduced some of the victims to accused-appellant and encouraged in some way or another said complainants to apply for overseas employment with the accused-appellant do not in any way shift the blame towards them or blot out accused-appellants culpability.The actuations of Elizabeth Bernal and Macon Dionisio only show that they were totally duped into believing accused-appellants ruse. The totality of the evidence shows that it was accused-appellant who purported to have the ability to send a worker abroad for employment although without the authority or license to do so. She was the one who told them about the job prospects in Taiwan and the requirements for their deployment. She was also the one who received the placement fees paid by the complainants. All of the witnesses testified to having personally met the accused-appellant; they testified that she asked from them a sum of money in exchange for the promised employment overseas; and that they gave her the money. Exhibits were presented in the form of receipts signed by accused-