in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the necessary license or authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities criminal. Accused-appellant interposes a denial in his defense, claiming that he never received any money from the complainants nor processed their papers. Instead, accused-appellant insists that he was merely a co-applicant of the complainants and similarly deceived by the schemes of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz. He contends that the fact that Benny Maligaya and Angleles Javier went to the house of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz in Novaliches, Quezon City, to get back their money and to followup their application proves that complainants knew that it was the de la Cruz who received the processing fees, and not accused-appellant. Further, accused-appellant argues that complainants could not have honestly believed that he could get them their passports since they did not give him any of the necessary documents, such as their birth certificate, baptismal certificate, NBI clearance, and marriage contract. Accused-appellants asseverations are self-serving and uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence. They cannot stand against the straightforward and explicit testimonies of the complainants, who have identified accused-appellant as the person who enticed them to part with their money upon his representation that he had the capability of obtaining employment for them abroad. In the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.[13] The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the receipts issued to complainants does not weaken the case of the prosecution. A person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing.[14] The absence of receipts to evidence payment does not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.[15] Accused-appellant contends that he could not have committed the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale since Nancy Avelino, a labor and employment officer at the POEA, testified that licenses for recruitment and placement are issued only to corporations and not to natural persons.This argument is specious and illogical. The Labor Code states that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.[16] Corrolarily, a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked, or canceled by the POEA or the Secretary. [17] It also bears stressing that agents or representatives appointed by a licensee or a holder of authority but whose appointments are not previously authorized by the POEA fall within the meaning of the term nonlicensee or nonholder of authority.[18] Thus, any person, whether natural or juridical, that engages in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority shall be penalized under Art. 39 of the Labor Code. It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is