Abdul Rahman Sebli JC:

[1] The joint charge against the two accused is as follows:

That you both, on the 11th day of August 2005 at about 10.50 am in room no. 808, 8th Floor, Kinabalu Daya Hotel, Jalan Pantai, in the District of Kota Kinabalu, in the State of Sabah, did on your own behalf traffic in a dangerous drug to wit 336.66 grams of Methamphetamine and that you both have thereby committed an offence under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Act 234) and punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act read with Section 34 of the Penal Code .

[2] They claimed trial to the charge before then Justice Ian Chin. At the close of the prosecution case Justice Ian Chin ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against both of them and accordingly acquitted them of the charge. He however called upon both accused to answer a charge under s. 12(2) read with s. 39A(2)(r) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act) . The accused pleaded not guilty to the amended charge and gave evidence on oath. At the conclusion of the trial Justice Ian Chin found both of them guilty and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. The 1st accused was additionally sentenced to ten strokes of the rotan.

[3] The Public Prosecutor appealed against the order of acquittal in respect of the trafficking charge. The appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal on 27 November 2007 and both accused were ordered to enter their defence on the original trafficking charge. By the time the defence case came up for hearing the trial had been taken over by me. Justice Ian Chin has since left the judiciary.

[4] By calling upon the accused to enter their defence on the original trafficking charge the Court of Appeal must have been satisfied that both accused were in mens rea possession of the drugs and that therefore the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da)(xvi) of the Act applies against them.

[5] At the conclusion of the trial it is incumbent on this Court to consider all the evidence before it and to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt: see s. 182A (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code . If, upon a review of the whole evidence there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, they must be acquitted: see PP v. Ibrahim Mahmud, [2001] 3 CLJ 284 . In Balachandran v. PP; [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 1 AMR 321 Augustine Paul JCA (as he then was) said that a case is said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt only upon a consideration of all the evidence adduced.

[6] Before I deal with the defence case I shall first deal with the prosecution evidence. It is necessary to set out the facts in some detail as they are relevant to show the state of mind of the accused persons. In doing so I am of course relying entirely on the printed notes of evidence without the benefit of seeing the witnesses while they gave evidence as their testimonies were taken before Justice Ian Chin.

[7] The salient facts are as follows. On 11 August 2005 at about 10.50am Inspector Willie anak Nunot (Inspector Willie) led a team of five police officers to conduct a raid at room 808 on the 8th floor of the Kinabalu Daya Hotel, Kota Kinabalu. They had earlier received information that drug trafficking activity was taking place at the hotel.

[8] On arrival at the hotel they enlisted the assistance of a hotel maid to get the occupants of room 808 to open the door. When the door was opened by the 1st accused Inspector Willie introduced himself as a police officer. On hearing this the 1st accused tried to push back the door but the police team managed to keep it open. Inspector Willie and his team then entered the room. There were only two occupants inside, namely the 1st and the 2nd accused who were husband and wife. Both are citizens of the Phillipines.

[9] Inspector Willie proceeded to conduct a body search on the 1st accused but nothing incriminating was found on him. The room was also searched but nothi