PENGAKUAN ALIBI ( PLEA OF GUILTY )

Nota: Nota kuliah undang-undang / akta keterangan . Mungkin berguna kepada semua pelayar blog ini. Tq

Pengakuan Alibi
(Plea of Alibi).

Kata kunci:

1. Alibi is a defence and must be valid.(Alibi adalah satu pembelaan dan mestilah sah)

2. Standard of proof either legal or evidential burden (tahap pembuktian adalah legal burden atau beban keterangan . Legal burden adalah lebih tinggi).

3. Rebutting alibi is on prosecution ( menyangkal alibi adalah pada pendakwa).

4. False alibi is evidence of guilt ( memberi alibi palsu adalah menunjukkan orang itu bersalah )

5. Teori Alibi adalah berdasarkan fakta bahawa tertuduh tidak boleh berada di dua tempat pada satu masa. Alibi adalah satu pembelaan (defence).

6. Hakim Hamid F.J dalam kes Kup Lip See v PP [1982] 1 MLJ 194 berkata

“pembelaan alibi sebenar mengandungi bukti kukuh bahawa defendant berada di tempat lain pada masa dan tempat disyakki” .

( a true defence consists of affirmative proof of defendant”s presence somewhere other than at the time and place alleged ).

7. Seksen 11(a) Akta Keterangan adalah berkait dengan alibi. Ia menyatakan fakta-fakta yang tidak konsistant/selaras dengan fakta menjadi isu atau fakta relevan adalah relevan.

8. Lihat ilustrasi (a) seksen 11.

Soalnya samada A melakukan jenayah di Kuala Lumpur pada suatu hari. Fakta bahawa A berada di Taiping pada hari tersebut adalah relevan. Fakta bahawa semasa hampir dengan masa jenayah dilakukan oleh A, beliau berada jauh dari tempat kejadian di mana sangat tidak mungkin , walaupun tidak mustahil dia melakukan jenayah tersebut adalah relevan.

9. Pembelaan Alibi terhadap tertuduh hanyalah pada imbangan kemungkinan. Jika ianya tidak boleh dipercayai maka ia akan gagal. Jika ia berjaya mengujudkan keraguan munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan maka tertuduh layak dibuang kes.

10. Seksen 103 juga merujuk kepada alibi. Sila lihat illustrasi (b) :

B ingin mahkamah pecaya bahawa pada masa di persoalkan dia berada di tempat lain. Dia mesti membuktikannya.

11. Menyangkal Alibi – Adalah terbuka kepada pendakwa untuk menyangkal pengakuan alibi. Contohnya pada tuduhan samun di lebuh raya, pendakwa hendaklah menyangkal keterangan alibi dengan membuktikan bahawa sebaik sahaja tertuduh menyerang pengadu dan pada tempat yang hampir sama telah merompak seorang lain.

12. Alibi palsu adalah keterangan seseorang itu bersalah. (False alibi is evidence of guilt).

13. Dalam kes di England R Wattam hakim Oliver berkata

“ada perkara lain dari hanya sekadar berbohong kepada polis sebelum seseorang itu dihukum melakukan sebarang jenayah…….

( there must be something more than the telling of lies to the police before a man is convicted of any crime…. ).

14. Keperluan notis Alibi.

Keperluan ini dilihat pada seksen 402A CPC.

15. 402A. Notice to be given of defence of alibi

(1) Where in any criminal trial the accused seeks to put forward a defence of alibi, evidence in support of it shall not be admitted unless the accused shall have given notice in writing of it to the Public Prosecutor at least ten days before the commencement of the trial.
(2) The notice required by subsection (1) shall include particulars of the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged, together with the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call for the purpose of establishing his alibi.

16. Isu untuk di timbangkan:

Pembuktian alibi samada Legal Burden atau Evidential burden (beban sah atau beban keterangan – beban sah adalah lebih tinggi ).

17. Di England tertuduh hanya perlu menimbulkan keraguan (nota: bukan keraguan munsabah(reasonable doubt) tetapi keraguan sahaja ) pada kes pendakwa iaitu beban keterangan (evidential proof) seperti dalam kes R Johnson [1961] 46 Cr. App. R 55.

18. Kedudukan di India adalah pembuktian beban sah (legal burden) seperti dalam kes Gurcharan Singh & Anor V State of Punjab All Indian Report [1956] Supreme Court 460 :

“….. beban bukti untuk alibi tidak diragukan adalah pada tertuduh, walaupun begitu beban bukti bahawa tertuduh bersalah adalah sentiasa pada pendakwa tidak kira samada tertuduh telah membuat pembelaan yang boleh dipercayai atau tidak”.

19. PP V Chidambaran & Anor ( AIR) 1928 Madras 791 :

….telah diputuskan keterangan alibi hendaklah di teliti dengan cermat, ianya senang dibuat dan tidak senang dibuktikan dan mestilah dibuktikan dengan jelas untuk cukup menyangkal kes pendakwa”.

20. Kedudukan di Malaysia.

Hakim Abdoolcader F.J dalam kes Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor V PP [1983] 2 MLJ 232

….apabila tetuduh bergantung kepada keterangan alibi untuk pembelaanya maka ia adalah beban sah (legal burden) atau beban probative untuk membuktikan pembelaannya. Mahkamah mengambil kira seksen 402A(2) CPC yang berbunyi “ for the puspose of establishing his alibi” (untuk tujuan membuktikan alibinya) sebagai cukup untuk membuktikan beban sah atau beban probative terhadap tertuduh. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes Gurcharan Singh & Anor V State of Punjab All Indian Report [1956] Supreme Court 460 (legal burden).

21. Kes mahkamah agong.

*Yau Heng Fang v PP [1985] 2 MLJ 335 dan Illian &Anor v PP [1988] 1 MLJ 421.

Dalam kedua-dua kes , mahkamah putuskan beban alibi kepada tertuduh adalah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah( to raise a reasonable doubt) atau lebih kepada evidential prove saja kepada kes pendakwa.

22. Dalam kes Yau Heng Fang di atas mahkamah menolak untuk mengikut keputusan kes Dato Mokthar Hashim dan juga tidak bergantung kepada ilustrasi seksen 11(a) atau illustari seksen 103(b) atau seksen 402A CPC.

23. Hakim Mohamed Azmi

“Seksen 402A tidak mengenakan beban sah (legal burden) membuktikan alibi. Tujuan seksen tersebut adalah notis bertulis hendaklah diberi oleh pihak pembelaan kepada pendakwaraya sekiranya pembelaan alibi hendak dikemukakan semasa pembicaraan dan seksen 402A(2) hanya menyediakan butir-butir yang diperlukan dalam notis berkenaan. Tidak ada perkara lain dalam seksen tersebut dan kami tidak fikir adalah niat badan perundangan bahawa seksen dalam CPC mempekenalkan satu beban sah baru kepada tertuduh dalam membuat pembelaanya’.

24. Dalam kes di atas tertuduh telah disabitkan dengan kesalahan membunuh tanpa sengaja dengan tiga yang lain. Pembelaannya adalah alibi iaitu dia menafikan terlibat dengan pergaduhan yang disyakki, menafikan menikam simati dan mengemukakan pengakuan alibi setelah memberi notis yang diperlukan di bawah seksen 402A CPC. Bagi menyokong pengakuannya , dia menyatakan semasa kejadian jenayah berlaku dia berada di panggung wayang bersama kawannya.

25. Hakim Mohamed Azmi seterusnya berkata di England , dalam pembelaan Alibi, beban keterangan (evidential burden) adalah cukup untuk mengujudkan satu keraguan munasabah kepada fikiran juri dan kes R V Johnson serta Woolmington V DPP [1935] AC 462 dirujuk (kedua-dua kes ini menyatakan beban alibi kepada tertuduh bukan beban sah ).

26. Di negara ini kita menggunakan ujian keraguan munasabah (reasonable doubt) ( nota: bukan - legal burden atau evidential burden kerana perkataan tersebut tidak ada di bawah seksen 402A CPC ) dalam kes alibi seperti dinyatakan oleh Charles Muray Anysley dalam kes Liew Chin Seong V Rex [1952] MLJ 236.

27. Cabutan text kepada kes di atas :

If by that statement the learned Judge intended to cast a new statutory burden on the appellant in establishing his alibi by virtue of s 402A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, then he had misdirected himself in law. In all criminal trials, the accused is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. There is no burden placed on the accused to prove his innocence. Since Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 was decided in 1935, the only defence in England that placed a legal burden of proof on the balance of probabilities on the accused is the defence of insanity. Other defences such as alibi placed merely an evidential burden of introducing some evidence enough to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury (see R v Johnson (1961) 46 Cr App R 55; and R v Stebbing[1962] Cr LR 472. In this country we have been applying the ‘reasonable doubt’ test in alibi cases as laid down by Sir Charles Murray Aynsley CJ in Liew Chin Seong v Rex [1952] MLJ 236. Section 402A(2) of the Criminal

28. Procedure Code provides:—

“The notice required by sub-s (1) shall include particulars of the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged, together with the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call for the purpose of establishing his alibi.”

29. It may be argued that because of the words, “establishing his alibi”, there is now a statutory burden placed on the accused so that since 10 January 1976 when the new section was introduced by Act A324, an accused person has to prove his alibi on the balance of probabilities.

30. Kesimpulannya Mahkamah Agong menyatakan untuk tertuduh berjaya dalam pembelaan alibinya adalah mengujudkan keraguan munasabah kepada kes pendakwaan.

31. Seperti juga dalam kes* Illian & Anor V PP di mana tuduhan dikenakan adalah mengedar dadah dan keterangan alibi diberikan Illian berada di Thailand dan apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh tertuduh mengujudkan kesnya pada keraguan munasabah. Kes ini juga mengenepikan keputusan kes yang dibuat dalam kes Dato Mokhtar Hashim yang memerlukan pembuktian kes alibi terhadap tertuduh adalah beban sah (legal burden).

32. Text kepada kes :

ILLIAN & ANOR v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1988] 1 MLJ 421

Facts:
The two appellants were charged with jointly trafficking drugs. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was that police party saw two males cycling together into the compound of the Kangar Hospital, and also subsequently saw one of them had two plastic bags to the other. The police closed in to arrest the two persons. The police were able to arrest the second appellant who immediately droped both bages. The other person then snatched one of the bags, fled and escaped. Subsequently some five months later, the first appellant was arrested when he came to the Kangar Magistrate Court in connection with some traffic offence. He was identified by the ASP in charge and one other member of the police party who were in the Kangar Hospital compound earlier. The two appellants were subsequently charged and at the trial the learned judge that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against both the appellants and their defence was called.

The second appellant in his defence said that on the day in question he went with Ah Lian, a stranger, to the Kangar Hospital and there that person handed him a plastic bag to be given to one Ah Chai. He therefore handed the plastic bag to Ah Chai, who was then coming out of a car nearby. Immediately after that , he was arrested and his companion who had earlier said his name was Ah Lian snatched the plastic bag from Ah Chai and ran whilst Ah Chai got into his car and drove off. The second appellant insisted that the first appellant was not the person called Ah Lian, who had handed the plastic bag to him in the Kangar Hospital compound.

The defence of the first appellant was an alibi. He claimed to be in Padang Besar, Thailand from 16 November 1978 till 20 November 1978 and in support he produced a border pass, the genuineness of the contents of which was challenged by the prosecution.

The learned trial judge found both the appellants guilty and they appealed to the Supreme Court. At the appeal, it was argued inter alia:

(a) that the learned judge has applied the wrong onus in considering the defence of alibi raised by the first appellant. The learned judge had said “the onus on the defence is one the balance of probability”;

(b) that the learned judge was in error in remarking that “it is incumbent upon the defence to call this witness, let alone object to the calling of the witness”. The prosecution had sought to call an immigration officer to rebut the evidence of the first appellant but this had been refused by the learned judge.

Held:
(1) the learned trial judge was in error in not making a distinction between the burden to rebut a presumption on a balance of probability and a burden to raise a reasonable doubt on the evidence led by the prosecution;

(2) the learned trial judge was in error in stating that the onus on the defence, where the defence is one of alibi, is on the balance of probability. The burden is the usual evidential burden cast upon an accused person, that is to raise a reasonable doubt;

(3) the presumption under s 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 that the person affected is deemed to have been in possession and to know the nature of the drug “until the contrary is proved” and, in s 37(da) of the Act, deemed to be trafficking in the drug until the contrary is proved means that the burden resting on a party to a civil proceedings that is on a balance of probability is applicable.

(4) a regards the defence of alibi, all that an accused person need to do is to raise a reasonable doubt that he was the person at the scene of the crime. The proper approach is for the learned trial judge to consider at the close of the defence case whether he had indeed succeeded in doing so. Since in his case the learned trial judge may have applied the heavier burden, then he had misdirected himself;

(5) section 114(g) of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against an accused person nor can the failure of the accused to call any witness be made the subject of comment at a criminal trial. The learned trial judge was therefore in error in remarking that it was incumbent on the defence to call the immigration officer in this case;

(6) the appeal court is unable to say whether the learned judge would have found the first appellant guilty had he rightly directed himself on the two important issues of law abovementioned. The appeal of the first appellant should therefore be allowed and he be acquitted and discharged;

(7) as regards the second appellant, his conviction was supported by the evidence on material particulars. He was caught red handed with the dangerous drugs and the learned trial judge was entitled to reject his defence having regard to the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case.

32. Dalam kes State of Maharastra V Narsing Roa – AIR [1984] SC 637 diputuskan pengakuan alibi mestilah dibuktikan dengan pasti.