Flight - "The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt."

See -  https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/dec2002/gr_147649_2002.html

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANK LOBRIGAS, MARLITO LOBRIGAS (At Large) and TEODORICO MANTE (acquitted), accused. FRANK LOBRIGAS, accused-appellant. G.R. No. 147649, December 17, 2002.

“X x x.

Finally, accused-appellant’s argument that the trial court’s reliance solely on the evidence of flight cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence is not well-taken. In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt.8

In the case at bar, not only did accused-appellant evade arrest when he went to Cebu under the pretext that he was going to work at Southern Island Hospital, but justice was further frustrated when he escaped from detention with the flimsy excuse that no one was guarding them. These two instances of flight by accused-appellant, taken together with the other circumstances established by the prosecution, support the trial court’s finding of accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion."9

X x x.”