guilty as charged and accordingly sentenced: (1) to suffer imprisonment of 2 years, 11 months and 10 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days and to pay Richard Castulo P18,000.00 plus interest as actual damages, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. T-1672; (2) to suffer imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months to 8 years and to pay Eduardo Drapeza P23,000.00 plus interest as actual damages, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. T-1673; (3) to suffer imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months to 8 years and to pay Odon Orosa P23,000.00 plus interest as actual damages, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. T-1674; and (4) to suffer imprisonment of 4 years and 2 months to 8 years and to pay Ricardo Ilasin P23,000.00 plus interest as actual damages, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. T-1675. In challenging the judgment of the trial court in Criminal Case No. T-1676, appellant takes issue on the failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[30] She contends that no evidence was presented by the prosecution showing that she lacked a license or authority to recruit by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). We agree. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) that the offender undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) that the offender does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) that the offender commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[31] There is no doubt that the first and third elements of the crime charged against appellant were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The second element - - - that the offender does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers - - - involves a negative averment. In the 1939 case of People v. Quebral,[32] we held that if the subject of the negative averment inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of proving it. A careful examination of the records will show that the prosecution completely failed to present any certification from the POEA to prove the negative averment that appellant is not licensed to recruit workers here and abroad. The testimonies of the complainants do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt of appellants lack of license.Drapeza admitted he did not ask appellant about her authority to recruit.[33] Neither did Orosa[34] nor Ilasin.[35] In light of this fatal failure, we hold that appellant cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. T-1676. We now come to the appeal in the estafa cases, Criminal Case Nos. T-1672 to 1675. Appellant argues that, except for Castulo, the three complainants did not present any receipt for the money they gave to her. She contends that without these receipts, it cannot be ruled that Drapeza, Orosa and Ilasin suffered any prejudice. Appellant also urges that without proof of damage, the trial court erred in awarding actual damages in favor of the three complainants.