The claim that appellant did not categorically represent herself as a licensed recruiter, or that she merely helped the complainants secure tourist visas, could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment,liii[53] it being enough that he or she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.liv[54] The fact that, with the exception of the cases involving Cherry Pi-ay and Corazon del Rosario, only the complainant in each of the cases, have testified against appellant in the illegal recruitment cases does not thereby make the case for the prosecution weak. The rule has always been that the testimony of witnesses is to be weighed, not that the witnesses be numbered, and it is not an uncommon experience to have a conclusion of guilt reached on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.lv[55] Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness has perjured himself or that his observations have veered from the truth.lvi[56] The absence of receipts to evidence payment to an indictee in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's cause. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that the accused has involved himself in an act of illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified.lvii[57] Altogether, the evidence against appellant has established beyond any discernible shadow of doubt that appellant is indeed guilty of illegal recruitment on various counts. Being neither a licensee nor a holder of authority to recruit, appellant must suffer under Article 39(c) of the Labor Code the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight 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. In imposing the penalty, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the application of the circumstances that could modify the criminal liability of an accused cannot be considered, these provisions being inapplicable to special laws.lviii[58] Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,lix[59] whenever the offense is punishable by a special law, the court shall impose on the accused an indeterminate sentence, "the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."lx[60] Accordingly, in imposing the penalty of four (4) years to six (6) years on appellant for each of the five cases of illegal recruitment, the trial court has acted correctly. Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if it is perpetrated against three or more persons "individually or as a group." Its requisites are that: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities as so defined by law, (2) the same person does not have a license or authority to do that, and (3) the questioned act is committed against three or more persons.lxi[61] The prosecution has been able to successfully show that, for a fee, appellant, not being authorized to recruit workers for abroad, did so in Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645 against seven complainants. For this offense, Article 39(a) of the Labor Code imposes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). This penalty was thus likewise aptly meted out upon appellant by the trial court.