personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS, in the aforesaid amount of P30,000.00, Philippine Currency. CONTRARY TO LAW.2[2] The information in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-94193, 91-94194, 91-94195, 91-94196 and 91-94197 likewise charged accused-appellant with Estafa and contain substantially the same allegations as the above-quoted information, except as to the name of the complainants and the amounts involved.3[3] The seventh information in Criminal Case No. 91-94198 charged accused-appellant with illegal recruitment in large-scale, to wit: That on or about and during the period comprised between December 21, 1990 and February 17, 1991, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with others still unknown and helping one another, and representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment abroad to Leo D. delos Santos, Merlita L. Bombarda, Margarita R. madae (sic), Purita A. Conceja, Cristina I. Nava and Napoleon E. Ramos, without first securing the required license or authority from the Dept. of Labor. Contrary to law.4[4] Criminal Case No. 91-94198 was originally filed before Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila where, upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.5[5] The six other cases were filed before Branch I of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, where accused-appellant, likewise, entered a plea of "not guilty" to all the indictments. The cases were eventually consolidated and tried jointly before Branch I.6[6] 2[2] Id., at 2. The informations with complainants Cristina Nava, Margarita Nadal, Purita Conceja and Leo de los Santos, respectively, involve the amount of P30,000.00 each, and Merlita Bombarda involves the sum of P20,000.00. 3[3] 4[4] Records, Criminal Case 91-94198-SCC, p. 1. 5[5] Records, Criminal Case 91-94192-97, p. 21. 6[6] Records, Criminal Case 91-94198-SCC, p. 37.