YONGO V. THE STATE

• Pages: 84-112

84

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 3 N.S.C.C.

YONGO V. THE STATE

SEBASTIAN S. YONGO

ISAAC. A. NOMISHAN

APPELLANT

V.

COMMISIONER OF POLICE

RESPONDENT

APPEAL No. SC. 225/1990.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

KARIBI -WHYTE,

J.S.C.

KAWU,

J.S.C.

WALT,

J.S.C.

KUTIGI,

J.S.C.

MOHAMMED,

J.S.C.

25th September, 1992.

Appeal

-Evidence of witness - where no finding made on it by trial judge - whether Appellate

court can rely on it.

Criminal Law and Procedure

-

Where no evidence is given by accused - conviction on plea

of guilty of accused - whether a substitution for proof of Ingredients of offence -

comparison of signature Judgment of judge thereon - whether sustainable without aid

of expert - sec. 317 penal code - receiving stolen property of guilty possession of stolen

30

goods - Not to shift burden of proof to accused.

Words And Phrases

Stolen property - definition of - believe and suspect - distinction between.

ISSUES:

1.

On whom does the onus of proof in criminal trial lie?

35

2.

What ingredient must the prosecution prove in a charge under section 317 of

the Perial code.

3.

What is the procedure to be followed when an accused person confesses to a

crime?

40

4.

When is a transaction not a sale.

5.

When can trial courts compare signatures.

6.

Whether the raising of a presumption of guilty possession of recently stolen

goods, shifts the burden of proof to the accused.

45

7.

How may the evidence of a co-accused be treated.

FACTS

The appellants with another were charged before the trial senior magistrate in

vandeikya magistrate's court, Benue state on three courts of offences of criminal

50

breach of trust under sec. 312 of the penal code, knowingly receiving stolen

property punishable under section 317 of the Penal Code, and concealing and

disposing of stolen property punishable under section 319 of the penal code. They

5

10

15

20

25

YONGO V. THE STATE

85

were convicted on the second count. Appellant's appeal to the High Court and the

court of Appeal were unsuccessful. They further appealed to the supreme court.

HELD:

5

1.

In criminal proceedings the onus is always on the prosecution to establish the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution will readily

achieve this result by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of

the charges are proved by evidence.

(see p.91, lines 1- 4)

2. Two of the Ingredients which the prosecution must prove in a charge under

10

section 317 of the penal code are -

a.

That the accused person or persons knew or had reason to believe that

the property in question was stolen property and

b.

That the accused person or persons received or retained the stolen

15

property dishonestly.

(see p.93, lines 12-17)

3. When an accused person confesses to a crime, he must put it in writing and

only after the necessary words of caution must have been administered on the

accused person. In the Criminal Procedure (Statement to Police officers) Rules

1960 - same as Judges Rules - which applies in the Northern states including

20

Benue state it is provided under rule 5 thus -

"5. where a person against whom a police officer has decided to make a

complaint, makes a statement before there is time to caution him he shall

be cautioned as soon as possible."

(see p.93, lines 30-38)

4. A sale where there is no offer of any price and no acceptance is a case of no

contract and no sale. In the instant case if anything took place between the

2nd accused and the appellants at all it would appear to be in the nature of a

pledge.

(see p.95, lines 41-44)

5. Although the Law permit trial court to compare writings and or signatures in

30

order to discover their author, this only arises in a case where the writings and

or signatures are in dispute and therefore in issue. And in such cases proven

or acknowledged writings or signatures of the disputants must be before the

court. In the instant case the senior magistrate was wrong when he single -

35

handedly in his Chambers, proceeded to examine exhibit K and thereby arrived

at the conclusion that 'the writing and the signatures" thereon were all done

by one single individual. (See

p.96, lines 43 - 47 & 39 - 42).

6. The raising of a presumption of guilty possession of recently stolen goods,

does not mean that the burden of proof is shifted to the accused so that he

40

must prove positively that he is an innocent purchaser. It is sufficient to rebut

the presumption if he gives an explanation of his possession which raises a

doubt in the mind of the court as to his guilt. It is uncontestable that an accused

person is always entitled to the benefit of doubt. The presumption under

section 148(a) of the Evidence Act is also a rebuttable one and if an accused

45

person gives a reasonable explanation of the possession of the property as in

this case, he should be acquitted if there is no other evidence against him.

(see

p.97, lines 4 - 13)

7. Although a co-accused is not to be treated as an accomplice, the practice is

always to treat such evidence with caution. In a criminal trial where an accused

50

incriminates a co-accused in his statement to the police, the statement is

evidence only against the maker and not against a co-accused. But where the

prosecution or the police intends to use the statement against a co-accused

25