4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly No. 8042 are unequivocal that illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial, therefore, whether appellant remitted the placement fees to “the agency’s treasurer” or appropriated them. The same provision likewise provides that the persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. Just the same, therefore, appellant can be held liable as a principal by direct participation since she personally undertook the recruitment of private complainants without a license or authority to do so. Worth stressing, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 is a special law, a violation of which is malum prohibitum, not mala in se. Intent is thus, immaterial[26] and mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable. Furthermore, we agree with the appellate court 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.[27] 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.[28] In this case, the prosecution has established that appellant defrauded the complaining witnesses by leading them to believe that she has the capacity to send them to Taiwan for work, even as she does not have a license or authority for the purpose. Such misrepresentation came before private complainants delivered P80,000 as placement fee 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.[29] In an effort to exculpate herself, appellant presented in evidence 11 vouchers[30] amounting to P314,030, which was allegedly received by Marilen Callueng, the supposed owner of Golden Gate. Notably, the dates on which said vouchers were issued and the amounts purportedly remitted to Callueng by way thereof do not correspond with the placement fee given by private complainants and the dates on which they paid the same to appellant. For instance, private complainants Aglanao and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 8/14