Conviction for these various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa. Illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal intent to warrant conviction.lxii[62] Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a),lxiii[63] of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the offense (estafa) are that (1) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.lxiv[64] Clearly, these elements have sufficiently been shown in the cases under review. The penalty for the crime is prescribed by Article 315, first to fourth paragraphs, of the Revised Penal Code as follows: 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos; "3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and "4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means: x x x." In the case of People vs. Gabres,lxv[65] the Court has had occasion to so state that "Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be `that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed' under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be `within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed' for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. "The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law accords