Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right x x x to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. x x x. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the appellant to admit something false.[28] Moreover, the words preferably of his own choice do not mean that the choice of a lawyer by appellant is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. If this were so, the tempo of justice would be solely within the control of appellant who could choose to impede the judicial process by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not available to defend her. Fifth and Sixth Issues: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in the Charges of Estafa, and the Order of Payment Five separate informations were filed against appellant charging her of violating subdivision 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Except for the names of the offended parties, the dates of the commission of the crime, and the amounts involved, all informations were similarly worded: That sometime in the month of February 1993 or thereabouts in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, defrauded and deceived one NAPOLEON APARICIO y CLEMENTE in the following manner to wit: said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation made to the said complainant to the effect that she has the capacity and power to recruit and employ complainant abroad and facilitate the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, knowing said manifestations and representation to be false and fraudulent and made only to induce said complainant to give, as in fact, the latter did give and deliver to said appellant cash money amounting to P40,000, but said accused, once in possession of the same, with intent to defraud and deceive the herein complainant, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert [the same] to her own personal use and benefit, [and] despite demands made upon her to return the said amount of P40,000, said accused failed and refused and still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the aforementioned amount of P40,000. Contrary to Law. [29] Except in Criminal Case No. 2862-V093, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt appellants guilt in the cases of estafa. Subdivision 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code lists ways by which estafa may be committed: