Flight is Indicative of Guilt
I HAVE been in trial practice for almost four decades, which means I have waited on judges for hours on end while reading tabloids until the information that they contained became stale news. This is my take on the highly controversial Arnolfo Teves Jr. case which is now headline material.
The media has been busy. It was reported that Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary Benjamin "Benhur" Abalos Jr. and Department of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla have said that Teves' departure for a place unknown shows his guilt. Teves counters that the reason why he is abroad is because his life is in danger. Recriminations from both sides have become acrimonious and personal.
The question presented now is whether Secretaries Abalos and Remulla are correct.
In the case of People v Medina, which involved the statutory rape of a 4-year-old girl, the accused immediately went into hiding and evaded arrest for more than six years. The Supreme Court, in assessing the case affirmed: "That flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence."
The doctrinal presumption is an old one. In 1913, in the case of US v Alegado, it was held that flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice to avoid arrest or detention, or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The flight of a person therefore may be taken as evidence to establish a person's guilt.
Flight establishes a powerful presumption of wrongdoing. When a person takes flight, the prosecutor has no choice — if the evidence warrants — but to file the necessary criminal information (this is a piece of paper that accuses a person of an offense or a crime, and is signed by the prosecutor). Before a person is convicted of a crime, he must be arraigned, the criminal information read to him in open court.
He cannot be convicted in absentia without being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as contained in the criminal information or indictment. If he fails to appear during the arraignment (an arraignment is the calling of an accused in open court to answer the charges contained in the information, i.e., whether he pleads guilty or not guilty), a warrant of arrest may be issued against him and thereafter, the State may ask for his extradition if the person charged has flown to another country. If there is no extradition treaty, then the Philippines cannot file an extradition request but take another route, i.e., to ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel his passport or ask the State where the accused is in hiding to expel the accused in the exercise of the State's sovereign right to expel aliens. If arrested, he shall be brought back to the court that issued the warrant of arrest and face arraignment. If he refuses to enter his plea, then a plea of "not guilty" will be entered on his behalf by the court.
What is the purpose of the accused in taking flight? Generally, if a person who has taken flight is moneyed and the case is a high profile one, his purpose may be to allow matters to "cool down." His return will be premised on timing; he will wait for the time when his crime will have been blurred by human memory. If there is conspiracy and many are accused of the crime, he will probably just wait for the trial of the other accused to be terminated. He can then return, submit to arraignment and present his case after his lawyers have thoroughly studied the evidence presented by the prosecution.
However, the abovementioned strategy has a drawback: if he is innocent, he will never have the chance to prove it; he will always be a hunted man because the filing of the criminal information in court arrests the running of the prescriptive period, which means the State will forever have the right to prosecute him of his crime.
If a person who has taken flight surrenders voluntarily or is arrested, it does not mean that he will lose his right to prove his innocence and that he will be automatically convicted. He can still prove his innocence and present controverting proof to override the presumption of guilt which his flight entailed. He can also file an appeal if he is convicted.
So, does fleeing have a purpose at all? The accused may have his reason which was easily divined in the case of People v Magdadaro: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as the lion."
Secretaries Benhur Abalos and Jesus Crispin Remulla are right after all.