SO ORDERED.[61] Seeking the reversal of his conviction, Ramon Dujua contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[62] All three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt. First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily prove that appellant promised them employment and assured them placement overseas. Complainants were firm and categorical. All of them positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. Their testimonies dovetail each other on material points. There is no adequate showing that any of them was impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant. Their testimonies were straightforward, credible and convincing. As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the three complainants, appellants mere denials cannot prevail.[63] It is irrelevant whether or not complainants claims are supported by receipts. The absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant and is not fatal to the prosecutions case. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that the appellant has engaged in Illegal Recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.[64] Second, appellant did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, the World Pack Travel and Tours, possess such license or authority. Third, it bears clarifying that although Romulo Portos was named as among those recruited by appellant the evidence reveals that Romulo withdrew his application in lieu of which his wife Melodea Villanueva applied for placement with appellant. Villanueva, however, is not named as one of appellants victims. Nevertheless, it has been alleged and proven that appellant undertook the recruitment of not less than three persons, namely, Cabus, Caluten and Perlas. The RTC, therefore, aptly meted upon appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00, in accordance with Article 39(a) of the Labor Code. The following elements of estafa, as defined by Article 315 (2) (a) are also present in this case, to wit: (1) the accused has defrauded the offended party by means of abuse of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as a result, damage or prejudice, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to the offended party or third person. Appellant misrepresented himself to Jaime Cabus and Roberto Perlas as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Taiwan and Japan and, by reason of such misrepresentations, the two complainants were induced to part with their money, causing them damage.