It is apropos to underscore the firmly established jurisprudence that a person who has committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.xxii[22] The crime 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 necessary for conviction.xxiii[23] In other words, a person convicted under the Labor Code may be convicted of offenses punishable by other laws.xxiv[24] However, 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.xxv[25] When the persons recruited are three or more, the crime becomes illegal recruitment in large scale under Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code. In both bases, it is the lack of a necessary license or permit that renders such recruitment activities unlawful and criminal.xxvi[26] In the case at bar, accused-appellant could have been validly charged separately with estafa under the same set of facts in the illegal recruitment case, but she was fortunate enough not to have been so charged. Nevertheless, there is no doubt from a reading of the information, that it accurately and clearly avers all of the ingredients that constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. The prosecutor simply captioned the information with the generic name of the offense under the Labor Code illegal recruitment. No misconceptions would have been engendered had he been more accurate in the drafting of the information considering that there are at least four kinds of illegal recruitment under the law.xxvii[27] One is simple illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority. The law penalizes such offender with imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000, or both such imprisonment and fine. Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority commits the second type of illegal recruitment. The penalty imposed for such offense is imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court. The third type of illegal recruitment refers to offenders who either commit the offense alone or with another person against three or more persons individually or as a group. A syndicate or a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another in carrying out the act circumscribed by the law commits the fourth type of illegal recruitment by the law. For the third and fourth types of illegal recruitment the law prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000. Hence, to avoid misconception and misinterpretation of the information, the prosecutor involved in this case should have indicated in its caption, the offense he had clearly alleged in its body, that the crime charged was for illegal recruitment in large scale. However, such omission or lack of skill of the prosecutor who crafted the information should not deprive the people of the right to prosecute a crime with so grave a consequence against the economic life of the aggrieved parties. What is important is that he did allege in the information the facts sufficient to constitute the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. As regards accused-appellants contention that the questioned decision is void because it failed to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based, this Court is not inclined to grant credence thereto.