assured them that there were jobs for them in Taiwan and inveigled them into paying processing or placement fees. As against the hard evidence built by the prosecution, appellant's defense was a mere denial which the trial court found to be weak; so does this Court. Appellant's attack is ultimately directed against the credibility of the complainants, the best judge of which is the trial court. In the matter of weighing the evidence of the prosecution vis-a-vis that of the defense through an assessment of their respective merits, it is firmly settled that the findings of the trial court are given great weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellate court, and may be disregarded only where substantial errors have been committed or determinative facts have been overlooked which otherwise would have dictated a different conclusion or verdict. Appellant's arguments that if she really participated in the recruitment activities of her husband she would have signed the receipts in her name and that her signature on a particular receipt was not genuine are irrelevant since her precise role in the illegal recruitment has been adequately demonstrated through other means. Moreover the prosecution could have dispensed with the presentation of the receipts. This Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the lack of receipts.xvi[16] Article 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code provides that illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. And when so committed it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage punishable under Art. 39, par. (a), of the same Code with life imprisonment and fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). Appellant having originally recruited twenty-six (26) persons - although only six (6) pursued their case - without license or authority was properly convicted by the trial court in Crim. Case No. 93-128140 of illegal recruitment in large scale and properly sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to Art. 39, par. (a) of the Labor Code. However, the trial court erroneously omitted the penalty of fine which the law requires to be imposed in addition to the life sentence. Thus, the correct penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). In addition, appellant should be made to indemnify the complainants in the amounts respectively paid by them. In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa under par. 2 (a), Art. 315, of The Revised Penal Code, as 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.xvii[17] In other words, a conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar punishment for offenses punishable by other laws.xviii[18] Swindling (estafa) is committed by any person who shall defraud another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transaction, or by means of other similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.xix[19]