6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Furthermore, we agree with the court a quo that the same pieces of evidence which establish appellant's liability for illegal recruitment in large scale likewise confirm her culpability for estafa. It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.[52] The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[53] In the instant case, the prosecution has established that appellant defrauded private complainants by leading them to believe that she has the capacity to send them to South Korea for work as domestic helpers, even as she does not have a license or authority for the purpose. Such misrepresentation came before private complainants delivered various amounts for purportedly travel expenses and visa assistance to appellant. Clearly, private complainants would not have parted with their money were it not for such enticement by appellant. As a consequence of appellant's false pretenses, the private complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money they paid were never recovered. All these representations were actually false and fraudulent and thus, the appellant must be made liable under par. 2 (a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. However, as to appellant's acquittal in Criminal Case Nos. 05-414 and 05-415, due to the trial court's finding that there is "insufficient" evidence to show that payment has been made to appellant, this Court can no longer review and pass judgment in view of the appellant's right against double jeopardy. Nevertheless, even if appellant was acquitted in these two estafa cases, it must be clarified that she can still be convicted of illegal recruitment. This is because while in estafa, damage is essential, the same is not an essential element in the crime of illegal recruitment. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority, not the fact of payment that renders the recruitment activity of appellant unlawful.[54] As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that the accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.[55] PENALTY elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63140 13/18