6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly insignificant in view of the fact that records disclose that the prosecution had in fact presented evidence to prove the said element of the crime of illegal recruitment. "EXHIBIT I", a certification issued by the Chief Licensing Branch of the POEA, attesting to the fact that neither appellant nor Philippine-Thai is licensed/authorized to recruit workers for employment abroad, was offered and admitted in evidence without the objection of the appellant.[8] Although appellant's arguments find no significant bearing in the face of the existence of "EXHIBIT I", they nonetheless require deeper scrutiny and a clear response for future application. Hence, the following discussion. Appellant correctly distinguishes between an admission that a particular witness if presented in court would testify to certain facts, and an admission of the facts themselves. According to the appellant, what was stipulated on between the prosecution and defense counsel at the hearing on June 6, 1990 was "merely that the testimony of the Chief Licensing Officer of the POEA would be to the effect that appellant is not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers",[9] Thus: "Prosecutor x x x Before we call on our first witness, we propose some stipulations regarding the testimony of the Chief Licensing Branch of the POEA -- that Cristina Hernandez is not a (sic) licensed nor authorized by the Department of Labor to recruit workers abroad. Court Would you agree? Atty. Ulep (Counsel for the Accused): Agreed, Your Honor."[10] She claims that the foregoing clearly indicate that there was no judicial admission of the fact of non-possession of a license/authority but rather a mere admission that the witness, if presented, would testify to such fact. This being the case, it remained incumbent upon the prosecution to present evidence of such fact. To buttress her position, the following was cited to note the distinction: "Suppose a case is set for trial and one of the parties moves for a continuance because of the absence of W, an important witness. His opponent, who is anxious to go to trial; asks what are the facts to which W would testify. The other attorney tells him, adding: 'If I consent to the overruling of my motion, will you stipulate that those are the facts?' The attorney who is pressing for trial says: 'No but I will stipulate that if W were called in this case as a witness, he would so testify.' What is the difference between the two stipulations? In the first stipulation proposed there is a judicial admission of the facts, and they cannot be contradicted. But the second stipulation proposed will only elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33888 4/13