When a suspect flees and hides in another country

The common truism is that when a suspect flees, he is guilty. The problem for the prosecution in the case of Congressman Arnulfo Teves is that he flew to another country before the crime was committed. Thus, technically he was not fleeing from anything by then. His refusal to come home after he was implicated has been predicated on his usual mantra that he wasn’t fleeing because no case has yet been filed against him, and that he will surely be back if he will be treated fairly.

In People vs. Paulino Magdadaro y Gerona, (GR 89370-72), the court declared: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as the lion.” If Teves is innocent, the people are asking why he refuses to come home and face the music. By putting conditions to his return, he is creating more doubt on his innocence. The only problem for the prosecution is that under our laws, doubts are always resolved in favor of the accused. Teves and his legal team are playing a game of brinkmanship. And the government isn’t amused.

In People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Ramil Mores, Accused-Appellant, GR 189846, the Supreme Court held: “Flight in criminal law is the act of evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. In one case, this Court had stated that it is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt; and flight, when unexplained, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn. Indeed, the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as a lion.” Thus, the more Teves delays his return, the more problems his defense team will have. The only problem for the prosecution is that the court cannot proceed to convict Teves in absentia until the said court has acquired jurisdiction over his person. And he should be arraigned first, which cannot be done in absentia.

In People vs. Mores, a case which took place in Capiz, the High Tribunal held: “From the foregoing, we have no other recourse but to sustain appellant’s conviction for the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. As correctly explained by the Court of Appeals, the single act of pitching or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of Ramie Balasa and injuries to other victims constituted a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which states that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.”

The court concluded: “The penalty for the most serious crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to DEATH. Thus, applying Article 48, the death penalty should be imposed. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the proper sentence therefore is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.” In the old case of US vs. Alegado, which I used to recite before my late professors Judge Jesus Narvios and Atty. Matoy Seno; an accused was held guilty of arson and was sentenced to imprisonment and his alibi was unavailing because of his flight from the locality. One of the more important cases after I became a lawyer was decided by Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. in People vs. Temistocles Castor (GR 93664).

The court said: “All the protestations of innocence by the accused-appellant are belied by his flight. He did not report for work the day after the incident. Furthermore, he left his residence, which was at his place of work in Novaliches, and moved to Caloocan City in the evening of 17 May 1986 where he stayed for one week with Palping. Thereafter, he transferred to Mandaluyong where he remained until his arrest. He offered no acceptable explanation as to why he so suddenly left his employment — his only source of livelihood — and why he had to move from one place to another. It has long been settled that the flight of the accused is competent evidence against him as having a tendency to establish his guilt.”

And so, Teves’ lawyer, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, my former student in Law school, has a lot of homework to do.