Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3488
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
TONNY RAMLEE & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA (SPRM) – Respondent
[Case No: BKI-42R(A)-1-3/2024]
The court upheld the conviction for bribery, emphasizing the reliability of contemporaneous evidence and the presumption of corrupt receipt under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act.
Headnote:(A) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Sections 16(a)
(B), 17(a), 34, and 50(1) - Penal Code - Bribery - Appellant convicted for soliciting and accepting a bribe of RM600.00 - Sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and RM10,000 fine for each charge, running concurrently - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1-36)
(B) Appeal - Standard of review - An appellate court is slow to disturb a trial judge's decision unless there is a wrong premise of fact or law, insufficient appreciation of evidence, or a fundamental misdirection. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an enforcement officer, was convicted for soliciting a bribe from a shop proprietor. The conviction was based on testimonies and audio recordings.
Findings of Court:
The trial judge's decision was supported by sufficient evidence, including audio recordings and witness testimonies.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the reliability of contemporaneous evidence over witness recollections that may diminish over time.
Result: Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
JUDGMENT
[1] The appellant Mohamad Nazri bin Rabani had been jointly charged and convicted with the other appellant Tonny Ramlee (both enforcement personnel with the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism) for acting in pursuance of a common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code to solicit and accept a bribe of RM600.00 on 14 July 2017 - under ss 16(a)(B) and 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 respectively - from one Chin Hau Jett, the proprietor of a sundry shop in Beaufort known as Jack Trading.
[2] The appellants were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000.00 for each of the two charges, and in default of payment, a further term of 3 months imprisonment would take effect. Both imprisonment sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[3] Eventually, the appellant Tonny Ramlee elected not to proceed with his appeal. That left Nazri as the sole appellant. He will be referred to as the appellant or by his name in the course of this judgment.
[4] The approach that a Court sitting in an appellate capacity takes is well-established. It will be slow to disturb the decision of a trial judge. It will only do so when, as held by Zawawi Salleh JCA (as he then was) in Mohd Yusri Mangsor & Anor v. PP; :
"(a) the judgment is based upon a wrong premise of fact or of law;
(b) there was insufficient judicial appreciation by the trial judge of the evidence of circumstances placed before him;
(c) the trial judge has completely overlooked the inherent probabilities of the case;
(d) that the course of events affirmed by the trial judge could not have occurred;
(e) the trial judge had made an unwarranted deduction based on faulty judicial reasoning from admitted or established facts; or
(f) the trial judge had so fundamentally misdirected himself that one may safely sat that no reasonable Court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion, then an appellate Court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned."
[5] The appellant canvassed a number of grounds for his appeal, but it was not disputed that he is an officer of a public body within the meaning of s 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 .
[6] Documentary proof that Nazri held a position as an officer of a public body was adduced, and a certificate on his position was tendered under s 55 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 .
[7] Instead, the appellant attacked the testimony of PW7 (the complainant) and PW12 (the complainant's father who was present in the sundry shop on the day in question, viz, 14 July 2017).
[8] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inconsistent with and contrary to the time set out in the charges and PW7's testimony that the offences were committed on that day between 1225pm and 1250pm, "PW12 had agreed that the time of the alleged offence of the Accused asking for monies happened on the in the morning and not on the afternoon as stated by the Complainant PW7." See Submission for the Appellant, encl 10, p 9, para 5.1.
[9] However, the submission is unmeritorious and untrue. This is what PW12 actually testified: "Tidak pasti pukul berapa sebab saya tidak memerhatikan jam. Tapi yang saya tahu mereka datang pada waktu pagi."
[10] When the officers visited the premises, ascertained that eggs and rice were sold without price tags, would be different from the time the offences of soliciting a bribe and accepting it took place, given that the discussions/negotiations took some time. PW12's testimony cannot be distorted to fit his counsel's submission.
[11] Further, the time gap between 1225-1250pm and the morning is short, and the outcome of the case did not turn on any time difference. It may be a different matter if the time that the offence was stated to have been committed in the evening, and PW12 maintained that the visit to the sundry shop was in the morning.
[12] Furthe
