Police v Filipo [2011] WSSC 82 (19 July 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU'U

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

MATAIO FILIPO
male of Falealupo, Faleapuna and Lotopa
Accused

Counsel: F Lagaaia and D Niumata for prosecution
Accused in person

Hearing: 15, 18 July 2011
Judgment: 19 July 2011

JUDGMENT OF SAPOLU CJ

The charge

1. The accused Mataio Filipo of Falealupo and Faleapuna is charged under s.18 (2) (b) of the Narcotics Act 1967 that at Fugalei Market on the 26th day of February 2011, he gave a small shopping bag containing forty (40) marijuana cigarettes to one Ioane Sefo a male over the age of 21 years.
   

The evidence

2. The brief evidence in this case shows that on Saturday morning 26 February 2011 at about 5:30am, a team of police officers carried out a dawn raid of a house at Fugalei. The police team then went to the market at Fugalei where they met the accused with whom some of the police officers are acquainted. Very shortly afterwards, the police met Ioane Sefo (Ioane) inside the market. Ioane was at the time serving a term of imprisonment but was out on week-end parole.
   
3. The police stopped Ioane and searched the bag he was carrying. They found in it a parcel containing forty (40) marijuana joints. When the police asked Ioane about the marijuana joints he said marijuana were given to him by the accused with whom he is acquainted. The marijuana joints were then put inside his bag. But when the accused saw the police in the market he walked away. That was when the police found the parcel containing the marijuana joints inside Ioane's bag shortly after they met the accused.
   
4. There was no dispute as to the identity of the marijuana substances. This was proved by the prosecution with scientific evidence. What was in dispute was whether it was the accused who gave the marijuana substances to Ioane. The accused denied that he gave Ioane the marijuana substances. Ioane maintained it was the accused who gave those substances to him. After careful consideration of the evidence and the respective demeanors of the accused and Ioane in the witness stand, I have decided to believe the evidence of Ioane and reject the evidence of the accused as unbelievable.
   
5. On Ioane's own evidence, he would be an accomplice. At this stage in the development of the law in Samoa on corroboration in respect of the evidence of an accomplice, I bear in mind the traditional corroboration warning that whilst the Court may convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if satisfied of its truthfulness, it is dangerous to do so: Police v Tanielu [2010] WSSC 134. I have borne that warning in mind in considering and accepting the evidence of Ioane.
   
6. I am satisfied that the charge against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
   

-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General's Office, for prosecution