Flight and Non-Flight

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 111286           February 17, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. RAMIL DACIBAR and WARLITO DICON, accused-appellants.

Principle: FLIGHT; ALTHOUGH it is settled that the flight of an accused is

competent evidence against him as tending to establish his guilt, there is no
law or principle holding that non-flight per se is proof let alone conclusive
proof of innocence—much like the defense of alibi, the defense of non-flight
cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the accused.

Facts: Accused-appellants, were charged of murder committed against Josue

Bacalangco. The information provides that Warlito Dicon, carrying a long
firearm, Ramil Dacibar, carrying a bolo, entered into the house of Josue
Bacalangco shooting the victim underneath the floor which caused the latter’s
death. For their part, the accused appellants argued, among others, that
their failure to attend the funeral of the victim despite close relationship with
him should not be considered as basis of their guilt; instead, their non-flight
from the locality of the crime should be considered as indicia of their
innocence.

Issue: WON the defense of non-flight from the locality of the crime be
considered in the appellants favor, thereby, dismissing the information.

Held: No. We agree with appellants that their failure to attend the wake of
the victim despite there being relatives and neighbors of the latter is not by
itself indicative of their guilt of the crime. Likewise, however, the fact that
appellants never fled the locality where the crime was committed is not by
itself a valid defense against the prosecution's allegations, as the defense
would like this Court to believe.34 Although it is settled that the flight of an
accused is competent evidence against him as tending to establish his guilt,
there is no law or principle holding that non-flight per se is proof, let alone
conclusive proof, of innocence. Much like the defense of alibi, the defense of
non-flight cannot prevail against the weight of positive identification of the
appellants.35