The Office of the Solicitor General, in praying for the affirmance in toto of the trial court decision, insists that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused, as shown by the following acts:ix[9] ... (1) He received deposits of money to defray travelling expenses (TSN, June 9, 1993, pp. 3-5; June 15, 1993, pp. 9-12, 22, 40-41; July 15, 1993, p. 34); (2) He informed the complainants that the money turned over would be used for the processing of papers and visas for Japan (TSN, June 9, 1993, pp. 3-5; June 15, 1993, pp. 11, 13, 31); (3) He gave assurance to the complainants that they would be able to leave for Japan otherwise their money would be refunded (TSN, June 9, 1993, p. 7; June 15, 1993, pp. 8-9, 20, 26, 30, 36; August 18, 1993, p. 3; August 19, 1993, p. 6); (4) He stayed at the apartelle office and manned the office by entertaining job seekers even after his co-accused Irene Yabut had gone into hiding (TSN, June 9, 1993, pp. 3-7; June 15, 1993, pp. 8-9, 20, 30; August 18, 1993, p. 5) The crux of the issue is whether appellant could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa. If so, did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale insofar as appellant is concerned? In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.x[10] The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.xi[11] Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.xii[12] Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa. Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code enumerates the acts which constitute recruitment and placement as follows (b) Recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The acts of appellant consisting of his promises, offers and assurances of employment to complainants fall squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined above. The fact that he did not issue the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on his culpability for the complainants have shown through their respective testimonies and affidavits that appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment.xiii[13] It is immaterial that appellant ingeniously stated to one of the complainants that he (appellant) was a member of the PNP and a government employee, hence could not sign the receipts.xiv[14]