NO, see the counterexample below
Classify every instance the same way. You have a recall of $1$, a precision of $0.5$, and an accuracy of $0.5$. However, your $F_1$ score is:
$$
F_1 = 2\dfrac{\text{precision}\times\text{recall}}{\text{precision}+\text{recall}}
=
2\dfrac{0.5\times 1}{0.5 + 1} = \dfrac{1}{1.5} = \dfrac{2}{3}\ne 0.5=\text{Accuracy}
$$
A simulation can show many counterexamples where accuracy, recall, precision, and $F_1$ are different, despite the balance.
library(MLmetrics)
set.seed(2024)
R <- 1000
N0 <- N1 <- 50
N <- N0 + N1
y_true <- rep(c(0, 1), c(N0, N1))
accs <- precs <- recalls <- f1s <- rep(NA, R)
for (i in 1:R){
y_pred <- rbinom(N, 1, 0.5)
accs[i] <- MLmetrics::Accuracy(y_pred, y_true)
precs[i] <- MLmetrics::Precision(y_pred, y_true)
recalls[i] <- MLmetrics::Recall(y_pred, y_true)
f1s[i] <- MLmetrics::F1_Score(y_true, y_pred, 1)
}
d <- data.frame(
Accuracy = accs,
Precision = precs,
Recall = recalls,
F1 = f1s
)
plot(d)
Equality would require the points to lie along the line $y = x,$ which is false for all of the pairs shown above.