Third Issue: Jurisdiction or Venue The defense argues that appellant cannot be convicted of large scale illegal recruitment because the alleged prohibited acts against complainants were committed beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. She points out that in complainant Villanuevas affidavit, he stated that he first met appellant in her residence in Quezon City. However, during complainant Villanuevas testimony in court, he stated that he first met appellant in her office in Valenzuela. The Rules of Court provide that in all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients thereof took place.[25] In the case at bar, the prosecution proved that the element of offering, promising, and advertising overseas employment to the complainants took place in appellants office in Valenzuela.Furthermore, it is elementary that jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information.[26] In this case, the information filed against appellant for illegal recruitment in large scale clearly placed the locus criminis in Valenzuela. As stated earlier, it was in Valenzuela where the complainants were offered or promised overseas employment by appellant. Furthermore, based on the prosecutions evidence, the Court is sufficiently convinced that at least one element of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale took place in Valenzuela. Where some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province or city and some in another, the court of either province or city has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the court first taking cognizance of the case will exclude the others.[27] Fourth Issue: Right to Competent Counsel Appellant, next maintains that the court a quo gravely erred in disregarding her right to a competent and independent counsel. Appellant notes that during the presentation of the prosecutions first witness on August 11, 1993, appellant was represented by Atty. Hortensio Domingo, who was not her retained counsel for the case. During the hearing, Atty. Domingo manifested that appellant herself requested him to represent her in that days hearing since her counsel, Atty. Yuseco, was still in Cagayan. During the second, third, fourth, and fifth hearings, appellant was represented by another counsel, a de oficio one, a certain Atty. Ricardo Perez, again because counsel for appellant was not around. Because of these instances, appellant claims that she was deprived of her right to competent counsel because the lawyers who represented her in the abovementioned hearings were not familiar with her case and, hence, were not able adequately to protect her interests. Article III, Section 12, paragraph (1) of the Constitution provides: