Can a defendant who fled immediately after the crime was committed "may show that he was aware of his guilt"?

The trial court used CALCRIM No. 372 to instruct that if defendant fled immediately after the crime was committed, such conduct "may show that he was aware of his guilt." The instruction added: "If you conclude that a defendant fled or tried to flee, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that a defendant fled or tried to flee cannot prove guilt by itself." (CALCRIM No. 372) Defendants argue the instruction deprived them of constitutional rights by "erecting an irrational permissive inference of guilt of murder." But this court rejected the same constitutional challenge to CALCRIM No. 372 in People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 26, 30-32. We decline to revisit it.