ADMISSION BY SILENCE:

     The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood the statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial; (3) that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer; (4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and (5) that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to the issue. It is noteworthy that throughout the entire process, and despite the many opportunities given to respondent, he refused to comment and present his side.  The gravity of the charges and the weight of the evidence against him would have prompted an innocent man to come out and clear his name.  However, he opted to maintain his silence. The respondent’s refusal to face the charges against him head-on is contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first impulse of an innocent man, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his innocence at the first opportune time. For his silence and inaction can easily be misinterpreted as a defiance to the directives issued, or worse, an admission of guilt. Moreover, silence is admission if there was chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges against her).  Besides, assuming without admitting that accused did take flight and left the country, we can conclude that this is a clear indication of guilt. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2005, Per Curiam).