VICIA D. PASCUAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 160540, March 22, 2007,
“x x x.
PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SELF-SERVING
Petitioner avers that her affidavit was crucial in determining whether or not she indeed committed estafa. She insists that, had the trial court allowed its submission, she would have been acquitted of the charges.
Lest petitioner forget, the affidavit she insisted on submitting as evidence in the trial court was her own affidavit. Her statements in that affidavit were self-serving. At any rate, even if offered and accepted as evidence, the affidavit was also unsubstantiated considering that petitioner adduced no other convincing evidence to prove that, indeed, the money was paid to the contractor of the covered walk. The affidavit alone was not enough to overthrow the prosecution's evidence pointing to petitioner as the author of the crime.
X x x.”
 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals), and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 72-88.
 Id., p. 100.
 Id., pp. 33-34.
 ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). − Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. xxx
 Decided by Judge Francisco B. Ibay, RTC, Makati City, Branch 135. Rollo, pp. 31-37.
 Id., p. 82.
 Id., pp. 83-88.
 Supra note 2.
 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
 Roxas v. Vasquez, 432 Phil. 148 (2002).
 Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communications, 435 Phil. 120 (2002); Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 1 (1999).
 Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165767, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 453; Salonga v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 111478, 13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 534; Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300 (2003).
 Rollo, p. 80.
 Salva v. CA, 364 Phil. 281 (1997); Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 304; Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, supra.
 Villanueva v. Sps. Alejo and Virginia Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, 25 January 2006; People v. Chua, G.R. No. 128280, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 225; Ayson v. Enriquez Vda. De Carpio, G.R. No. 152438, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 449; Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294 (1999).
 Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138480, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 309; L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. v. Sy, G.R. No. 143701, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA 189.
 San Agustin v. People, G.R. No. 158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392.
 Id.; Villaflor v. Vivar, 402 Phil. 222 (2001).
 Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132422, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 460.
 Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28 February 2006.