Illegal recruitment is deemed committed x x x in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Accused-appellant failed to rebut the presumption in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. Her defenses of lack of profit and lack of criminal intent are pointless. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority which renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.[50] Worth reiterating is the rule that illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, and the fact alone that a person has violated the law warrants her conviction.[51] As if desperate in her bid to free herself from the predicament she was in, accusedappellant would put the blame on the complainants themselves, imputing recklessness to them in parting with their money. This Court recognizes the difficult times we are in and realizes that hopes for a better future for many Filipinos lie in overseas employment.[52] But illegal recruiters have taken undue advantage of this reality. These present-day predators should not be allowed to feast on the gullibility of their countrymen whose only desire is to improve their lot. The Court likewise affirms the conviction of accused-appellant for Estafa committed against the eight (8) complainants. Conviction under RA 8042 or The Labor Code of the Philippines does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa.[53] The abovementioned facts established by the prosecution proved that the following elements of estafa had been committed by accused-appellant, to wit: (a) accused-appellant defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit, and (b) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[54] However, the trial court apparently erred in the computation of penalties for estafa. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides - Art. 315. Swindling (estafa) - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by: 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 P12,000.00 pesos but does not exceed P22,000.00 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 P10,000.00 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, 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; xxxx Under Sec. 1 of 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. In People v. Gabres[55] we elucidated -