2. 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. In People v. Calonzo,xxxvi[36] the Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted of violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa, provided the elements of the crime are present. In People v. Romero,xxxvii[37] the elements of the crime were stated, thus: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Both elements have been proven in this case. The evidence for the prosecution shows that accused-appellant was able to make private complainant Nelson Tamares part with his hard-earned money upon his fraudulent misrepresentation that he can provide Tamares with work abroad. Accused-appellant contends, however, that the testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to convict him. He points out that the evidence against him is purely testimonial and not documentary. There is no merit in this contention. In People v. Pabalan,xxxviii[38] we said: Although not all of the amounts testified to by complainants were covered by receipts, the fact that there were no receipts for some of the amounts delivered to him does not mean that appellant did not accept or receive such payments. This Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal 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 had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentations of receipts in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses.xxxix[39] For the same reason, we see no reason to disturb the award of actual damages by the trial court. Although not all the complainants were able to produce receipts, they were all able to duly prove by their respective testimonies that accused-appellant was involved in the entire recruitment process and that he got their money.xl[40] Fourth. Accused-appellant finally contends that complainants signed waivers in which they did not only absolve his wife and others (i.e., accused-appellant and Quinses Bellosillo) but acknowledged that they went abroad as tourists, knowing full well that they were merely taking chances that they might be able to work abroad. The waivers are dated March 3, 1992, March 4, 1992, and March 5, 1992. These were the dates the complainants who signed the waivers left for abroad. The dates confirm their claim that they did not have a chance to read the waivers before