Q: [When] she offered you a job in Israel, what did you do? A: I went to their stall which is located [in] Calasiao, and in the same place I also met several applicants. Q: When did you go to the stall of the accused? A: The following day, sir. xxxx Q: And what did you do at the stall of the accused in Calasiao, Pangasinan? A: When I went to the stall of the accused, since I saw other applicants, I was convinced to apply and I called up my aunt and asked for help. Q: Since you were at the stall of the accused in Calasiao, what transpired next? A: When I talked to her, she told me if I have a money of P3,600.00 I could easily depart within one (1) week or two (2) weeks.[15] From the above testimonies, it is apparent that petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would render. The said act of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls within the meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. As to petitioner's contention that the testimony of Arturo Siapno that the latter paid a certain amount of money to the former must not be given any credence due to the absence of any receipt or any other documentary evidence proving such, the same is without any merit. In People v. Alvarez,[16] this Court ruled that in illegal recruitment cases, the failure to present receipts for money that was paid in connection with the recruitment process will not affect the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution as long as the payment can be proved through clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses. It was discussed that: In illegal recruitment, mere failure of the complainant to present written receipts for money paid for acts constituting recruitment activities is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the payment can be proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses. xxxx x x x The Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority. In People v. Pabalan, the Court held that the absence of receipts for some of the amounts delivered to the accused did not mean that the appellant did not accept or receive such payments. Neither in the Statute of Frauds nor in the rules of evidence is the presentation of receipts required in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. Such proof may come from the testimonies of witnesses.[17] With regard to the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, this Court finds it to be inappropriate. The trial court imposed the penalty of eight (8) years imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 plus cost and ordered petitioner to return the amount of US$3,600.00 or its equivalent to Romulo Padlan and the amount of US$3,600.00 or its equivalent to Arturo Siapno. Under Article 39 (c) of the Labor Code, which prescribes the penalty for illegal recruitment, any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under the law and found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years but not more than eight (8) years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor more than P100,000.00 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court. Clearly, the trial court, by imposing a straight penalty, disregarded the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[18] In Argoncillo v. Court