Suspect denies rape, evades law for 3 years, gets jailed

The appellant also argues that although the defense of denial is, indeed, a weak defense, being a negative averment, nonetheless, it was not for the appellant to prove that he did not rape AAA, but for the prosecution to prove that the appellant did rape her.

To repeat, the evidence of the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Denial, being an intrinsically weak defense, must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. It is a negative self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The appellants barefaced denial of the charge cannot prevail over the positive, spontaneous and straightforward identification by the victim of the appellant as the malefactor. A rape victim can easily identify her assailant especially if he is known to her because during the rape, she is physically close to her assailant, enabling her to have a good look at the latter's physical features. And in the present case, it cannot be doubted, as it can be clearly gleaned from the records that AAA positively identified the appellant as the person who raped her.

It is also bears stressing that the appellant in the case at bar has evaded the law for almost three years. To this the Court of Appeals said: [I]t has long been settled that the flight of the [appellant] from the scene of the crime is proof of guilt or of a guilty mind. Accordingly, there is flight when the [appellant] evades the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing ones self in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. In this case, [appellant] has evaded the law for almost three (3) years. Indisputably, his flight evidenced guilt. (G.R. No. 177749; December 17, 2007)