G. R. No. 178337 15 of 21 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/178337.htm Pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). Applying the provisions of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law, however, the correct penalty that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as [52] maximum. The imposition of a fine of P500,000.00 is also in order. With respect to the criminal charge of estafa, this Court likewise affirms the conviction of petitioner Ritualo for said crime. The same evidence proving petitioner Ritualos criminal liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for estafa. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Art. 315, [53] paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As this Court held in People v. Yabut : 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. 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. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. 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. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Ritualo was similarly guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code committed -By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. Both elements of the crime were established in this case, namely, (a) petitioner Ritualo defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) complainant Biacora suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a [54] Biacora parted with his money upon the prodding and enticement of petitioner result. Ritualo on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy him for employment in 1/28/2016 11:03 AM