Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 2867

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PHILIP UJA – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: Q-05(M)-158-05/2020]

Petitioner Advocates:Harold Emparak Anak Kerebo ,Respondent Advocate: Samihah Rhazali

Circumstantial evidence must collectively indicate guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution carries the burden to prove this in murder cases.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 302 - Charge for murder - The Appellant was found guilty of murdering the deceased and sentenced to death. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last known whereabouts of the deceased and evidence of the Appellant's presence at the crime scene. The trial judge found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-82)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must point irresistibly to the conclusion of guilt, considering the combined strength of individual pieces of evidence. (Paras 44-50)

(C) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying solely on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 47, 76)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased, whose body was found in her room with signs of trauma. Evidence placed the Appellant at the crime scene on the night of the murder, and he was later found in possession of the deceased's belongings. (Paras 1-35)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution established a prima facie case against the Appellant, who failed to raise reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence indicated that the Appellant was the last person seen with the deceased before her death. (Paras 36-82)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Appellant's defense raised reasonable doubt. (Paras 41-42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, when considered collectively, pointed to the Appellant's guilt, and the trial judge was correct in finding no reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. (Paras 76-78)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. appellant charged with murder and found guilty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prosecution's case outlined through witness testimonies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. evidence of items related to deceased collected. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. appellant identified as suspect and arrested. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. trial judge finds prima facie case against appellant. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. issues raised in appeal regarding trial judge's findings. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
7. analysis of circumstantial evidence and its implications. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
8. court's findings on discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
9. appellant's explanation and its evaluation by the court. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
10. cumulative evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
11. conclusion affirms conviction and sentence. (Para 79 , 80 , 81)

Hashim Hamzah JCA:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant was charged under s 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of Nurnia Azalea Priscilla ("deceased"). The charge against the Appellant reads:

"That you between 8.00 pm on the 1 August 2018 and 2.30 pm on 2 August 2018, at an unnumbered room at No 9B Tiong Hua Road, in the district of Sibu, in the State of Sarawak, did commit murder by causing the death of one Nurnia Azalea Priscilla binti Edward (F) NRIC: 920303-13-5036, and you thereby committed an offence, punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code ."

[2] The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge under s 302 of the Penal Code . The matter went for a full trial before the learned trial judge. On 11 March 2020, at the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was found guilty and convicted of the offence. He was sentenced to death. This is the Appellant's appeal against the said decision.

[3] The Appellant was also charged under s 376 of the Penal Code for allegedly raping the deceased. The learned trial judge found that no prima facie case was made out for the offence of rape under , and there was no appeal against the said decision.

The Prosecution's Case

[4] A total of 19 witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution. The learned trial judge has extensively outlined the case for the prosecution in his grounds of judgment. We respectfully adopt them with some necessary modifications.

[5] In the present case, the crime scene is an unnumbered room in a house at No 9B Tiong Hua Road, Sibu, Sarawak ("the house"). At the material time, only five people lived in the house. Jelawat anak Lee ("PW4"), Cecilia anak Inggong ("PW5") and the deceased all lived in their respective rooms on the ground floor, which had three rooms Lee Mee Ung ("PW6") and his grandson lived on the first floor. They were all tenants in the house. According to the evidence, the unnumbered room where the deceased's body was found, was the deceased's room.

[6] PW4 came to know about a room at the house which was available for rent through PW5. She met PW5 at the house on 30 July 2018 to finalise the rental terms, which were agreed at RM180 per month. At that time, PW4 was introduced to the deceased, who told her that her rental was to be paid to the deceased.

[7] On 1 August 2018 at around 6.30 pm, PW4 collected the keys to her room from PW5. After PW4 left her bags in her room, she went out shopping.

[8] On the same day, at around 7.30 pm, the deceased's husband, Mohd Zakaria Ahmad ("PW16"), a clerk at SK Kuala Tatau in Bintulu, received a video call from the deceased. During the video call, the deceased told PW16 that she had arrived at the house gate and would call him later. That was the last time he heard from her and saw her alive. PW16 tried to call the deceased at around 11.00 pm. that night, but his call was unanswered.

[9] Samat bin Iderus ("PW3") a lecturer at the University College of Sibu and a part-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 2867

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPHILIP UJA – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No: Q-05(M)-158-05/2020]

Circumstantial evidence must collectively indicate guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution carries the burden to prove this in murder cases.

Cases Referred (5)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PHILIP UJA – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: Q-05(M)-158-05/2020]