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. As defined, a "license" is that which is issued by the Department of Labor and Employment authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an "authority" is that issued by the DOLE entitling a person or association to so engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment agency. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or criminal.28[28] Missdaa To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.29[29] Accusedappellant represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction workers in Taiwan. He advised Bacasnot to accept a job as a factory worker first because it would be then easier for him to transfer jobs once he got to Taiwan. Accused-appellant said his mother, who was based in Taiwan, could help Bacasnot. Bacasnot paid accused-appellant an initial placement fee agreeing to pay the balance through salary deductions once he was employed. Accused-appellant also promised jobs to Eliw and the other complainants. He accompanied them to Manila so that they could be interviewed and physically examined at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency with which accused-appellant represented he was connected. These acts of accused-appellant created the distinct impression on the eight complainants that he was a recruiter for overseas employment.30[30] There is no question that he was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Nor is there any question that he dealt with complainants. What he claims is that he merely "suggested" to complainants to apply at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which is a recruitment agency. Even if accused-appellant did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment, his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accusedappellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment. Second. Accused-appellant denies that the signatures in the receipts of payments are his. To be sure, the presentation of the receipts acknowledging payments is not necessary for the successful prosecution of accused-appellant. We have already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant and is not fatal to the 28[28] People v. Sanchez, 291 SCRA 333 (1998) 29[29] People v. Goce, supra. 30[30] People v. Peralta, 347 Phil. 379 (1997)