This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Generally, flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence.[29] It has been held, however, that non-flight may not be construed as an indication of innocence either. There is no law or dictum holding that staying put is proof of innocence, for the Court is not blind to the cunning ways of a wolf which, after a kill, may feign innocence and choose not to flee.[30] In Cristina's case, she explained that she took flight for fear of her safety because of possible retaliation from her husband's siblings.[31] The Court finds such reason for her choice to flee acceptable. She did not hide from the law but from those who would possibly do her harm. | |||||