2. By means of any of the following 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. There are three ways of committing estafa under this provision: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. Such deceit consists of the false statement or fraudulent representation of the appellant, which was made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant, it being essential that such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing of value. If there is no prior or simultaneous false statement or fraudulent representation, any subsequent act of appellant, however fraudulent and suspicious it may appear, cannot serve as a basis for prosecution for this class of estafa. The Solicitor General, correctly states in the appellees brief, that all the elements of the abovementioned crime have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant represented herself, personally and by way of the advertisement in the newspaper, that she can provide complainants with work abroad. Hence, relying on her representations, complainants parted with their money and delivered the same to appellant. The truth, however, was that appellant never had the license from the POEA to recruit persons for overseas employment.Complainants were never given any employment abroad and thus they suffered damage by reason of appellants illegal acts. We note, however, that in Criminal Case No. 2863-V-93, the trial court only ordered appellant to pay complainant Ariston B. Villanueva a total amount of P35,000 in actual damages. The fundamental principle of the law on damages is that one injured by a breach of contract or by a wrongful or negligent act or omission shall have a fair and just compensation, commensurate with the loss sustained as a consequence of the defendants acts. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement.[30] To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.[31] In this case, it was duly proven by the receipts presented by complainant Villanueva and his testimony during trial that he handed appellant a total amount of P70,000 and only got back P19,000. Hence, correction of the trial courts award is called for. Appellant should be ordered to pay complainant Ariston B. Villanueva the total amount of P51,000 in actual damages in Criminal Case No. 2863-V-93.