Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Minimao [2025] PGNC 361; N11503 (1 October 2025)

N11503

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1734 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

PHILIP MINIMAO

WABAG: ELLIS J
30 SEPTEMBER, 1 OCTOBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – WILFUL MURDER - s. 299(1) CCA – Plea – Offender with others – An axe plus multiple bush knives carried by them – Offender chopped off victim’s left arm – Substantial compensation of 152 pigs plus K125,000 paid - 21 years IHL.

Brief facts
The victim and a person the accused regards as a son had an argument one evening. The next afternoon, the offender with others went to where the victim lived. They were armed with one axe and bush knives. Injuries suffered by the victim were a wound to is left leg and his left arm was severed. He died from blood loss on the way to hospital.

Held
Guilty plea at outset of trial
First offender
Protection of Life
Prevalent Offence
Kovi, upper limit of category 2
Reduction from 30 years IHL
Payment of significant compensation
Two houses owned by the offender burnt down
21 years IHL
Period on remand deducted
Balance to be served

Cases cited
Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789
Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC 15; SC702
State v Kilala [2012] PGNC 282; N5080

Counsel
P. Tengdui for the State
L. Toke for the defendant

SENTENCE

1. ELLIS J: Philip Minimao of Apaimas village in the Yalis 2 Ipia Council Ward within Wapenamanda District in Enga Province, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of wilful murder, based on section 299(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1974 (CCA).
   
2. In the CCA, s 299(1) provides as follows:

“Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.”

Allocutus

3. Since the uncontested evidence upon which the State relied supported a conviction, the offender was provided with an opportunity to address the Court, prior to closing submissions. What he said, as translated into English, was:

“Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express myself on the charge that I was charged. The other co-accused are innocent of this trouble. They are from the different Council Ward and a different tribe. The deceased and I are from the same tribe. The other accused, including me, we had a hard time and I had to admit to this charge. Since I am a first time offender, I would like to ask the State to reduce the charge. I am a public servant, a teacher. I did not plan to get into this problem. At the time of the incident, it was an ordinary week, a school day. I was on school business, and this problem affected me. I myself an a headmaster of a school. I do teach the children, and I take care of the school. I have served this country for 24 years as a teacher. In my 40 years of teaching, I have helped a lot of kids and they are contributing to this country as well. I am a father to 11 children.

When I surrendered myself to the Police, and when I was at the Police cell, there were about 50 of them there, they escaped from Police custody, and I remained in there. That was 06 September 2024. That’s because I respect the law of this country, I stayed back. I respected my family and my job and I stayed back. While I was outside, before going to prison, I paid compensation to this victim, to the deceased’s relatives.

I also got involved in two other compensation payments for this same deceased. I got a copy of the settlement order. I want to take this time to say sorry to God and also to the Constitution of this country. I also say sorry to the deceased who also lost his life at my hand. I also say sorry to the families of the deceased. And I also say sorry to my own community. To my family I also say sorry. Finally, I say sorry to those who have been with me even though they were not involved in that tribal (fight). I also say sorry to their families as well.

This problem happened because the victim attacked me twice and I tried to defend myself. He was drunk in the eyes of the public and I went through this problem. I am a teacher, by profession, and my tools are books, pencils and pens, not bush knives or an axe. The bush knife used was not mine: it was the deceased’s bush knife. I was trying to propose for a classroom and this incident happened. All these stories that I have set out are all in my affidavit that is here with me.”

Evidence for the State

4. The evidence placed before the Court by the State was the Police brief being pages numbered 1 to 86 (Exhibit A). Those pages included (1) a record of what the offender said when this matter was before the District Court, (2) ten statements from witnesses, (3) an autopsy report, affidavit and medical certificate from a doctor, (4) statements from two Police officers, (5) a record of interview, (6) notice of an alibi defence, (7) details of four people who could rebut that alibi defence, (8) photos of both the deceased and the crime scene, and (9) an antecedent report.
   

Evidence for the defence

5. The offender relied on his affidavit (Exhibit 1), a Settlement Order (Exhibit 2) and a document headed “Statement of witness during peace process between Yakuman and Yagakuni tribe” (Exhibit 3).
   
6. Exhibit 1 contained a version of events which was vastly different to that of the State’s witnesses. It went on to indicate the compensation that had been paid to the family members of the deceased and the consequences of this incident for the offender. Annexures to that affidavit included a sketch map, a settlement order dated 3 September 2024, photos of the compensation being paid, and photos of the houses in which the offender’s first and second wives lived being burnt.
   
7. Exhibit 2 was a copy of a settlement order dated 5 July 2024 while Exhibit 3 was a statement signed by five people in relation to that 5 July 2024 compensation payment. That settlement order records compensation of 112 pigs and K85,000 cash while the 3 September 2024 settlement order states 40 pigs and K40,000 cash.
   

Defence submissions

8. It was contended that, by reference to the guideline judgement of the Supreme Court in Kovi v The State [2005] PGSC 34; SC789, this case fell within category two for which the suggested sentencing range was imprisonment with hard labour for between 20 and 30 years.
   
9. Aggravating factors were conceded to be the use of a weapon, a life being lost, and the prevalence of the offence. Suggested mitigating factors were (1) a first offender, (2) who pleaded guilty to the indictment, (3) and did not pre-plan what occurred. It was also suggested (4) that the offender acted alone, (5) that he had expressed remorse, (6) that there was provocation, and (7) that compensation had been paid.
   
10. A submission was made that the sentence in this case should be imprisonment for 20 years and it was noted that, having been remanded in custody at the committal hearing on 4 October 2024, the offender had already spent one year in custody.
    

Prosecution submissions

11. The prosecution relied on written submissions (MFI 1) and Mr Tengdui did not add to those submissions other than to suggest a sentence of 28 years on the basis that the conduct of this offender involve a disregard for human life.
    
12. Those written submissions set out what it was contended should be the factual basis for sentencing. It was contended that, by reference to the decision in Kovi, this case had elements of categories two and three and the aggravating factors suggested were (1) the use of offensive weapons, (2) the offender being in the company of others, (3) a pre-planned attack, (4) the victim being unarmed and outnumbered, (5) there was a vicious attack with multiple injuries causing the death of the victim, and (6) the offence is prevalent. The fact that the offender had pleaded guilty was accepted as being a mitigating factor.
    
13. It was contended that the retaliation the day after a drunken dispute between two people was grossly disproportionate to the initial fight and that the killing was unnecessary.
    
14. Reference was made to State v Kilala (2012) PGNC 282; N5080 in which Lenalia J imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 30 years, following a plea of guilty to a charge of wilful murder. The following words from that judgement were quoted:
    

“... the basic principle that the sanctity and value of a human life is more precious and valuable than wealth must be given serious consideration by this Court. Neither wealth nor worldly business or money paid in the form of compensation nor would any remorse restore or revive a life that has been lost.”

Relevant law

15. In Kovi, in which the Supreme Court specified sentencing ranges for the offence of wilful murder, under the following four categories:
    

Category 1 15-20 years

Plea No weapons used.

Ordinary cases. Little or no pre-planning.

Mitigating factors with Minimum force used

no aggravating factors. Absence of strong intent to do GBH.

Category 2 20-30 years

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Mitigating factors with Weapons used.

Aggravating factors. Strong desire to kill.

Category 3 Life imprisonment

Trial or plea Pre-planned. Vicious attack.

Special aggravating factors. Strong desire to do kill.

Mitigating factors reduced in Dangerous or offensive weapon used

weight or rendered insignificant eg. gun or axe.

by gravity of offence. Other offences of violence committed.

Category 4 Death

Worst case - Trial or plea Pre-meditated attack.

Special aggravating factors. Brutal killing, in cold blood.

Killing of innocent, harmless person.

Killing in the course of committing another serious offence.

Complete disregard for human life.

16. Since the prosecution bears the onus of proof and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, it follows that, when considering the findings of fact before sentencing, any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favour of the offender.
    

Findings of fact

17. From the evidence, and having regard to the submissions, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
    

(1) There was a fight on the night of 26 May 2024 between the Jackson Tapulya and the victim in which the influence of liquor played a role.

(2) On the following day, the accused, in the company of others, went to the residence where the victim usually resides.

(3) One of those persons took an axe while the others carried a bush knife.

(4) After gaining entry to those premises, the victim was surrounded and was struck by those weapons.

(5) The victim suffered a wound to his left leg and the offender chopped off the victim’s left arm.

(6) From the number of people present, the weapons they carried, and the nature of the injuries, it is a reasonable inference that the offender had an intention to kill.

(7) The victim died of blood loss while being taken to hospital.

(8) While a number of persons surrendered to the Police, the offender remained at large until he was sighted at a bank in Mount Hagen on 22 August 2024 and a mobile squad apprehended him inside that bank.

(9) In his record of interview, the accused denied that he had any any involvement in that incident and put initially put forward an alibi defence.

(10) However, during his committal hearing, the offender suggested he went to the subject residence, with some others, and the victim swung his bush knife at the offender and fell down, after which the offender picked up that bush knife and, when the offender lifted his arm, he got cut.

(11) The offender did not indicate a plea of guilty until the commencement of a trial of eight accused, which necessitated an adjournment until later the same day, so that his lawyer could obtain instructions.

(12) It is sufficient to record that the affidavit which the accused submitted during the hearing of his plea, gave a third version, which did not include anyone other than he and the victim, and the offender suggested the victim was the aggressor.

(13) On 5 July 2024 the offender paid compensation of 112 pigs and K85,000 cash to the victim’s family members.

(14) On 3 September 2024 the offender paid compensation of 40 pigs and K40,000 cash to the victim’s family members.

18. Consistency and credibility go hand in hand. The varying versions given by the offender render his evidence unreliable. His evidence cannot be accepted unless it is reliably corroborated. The version of events for which the State’s witnesses contend must clearly be preferred.
    
19. It is considered that the State’s evidence establishes (1) to (11) above beyond reasonable doubt and that the Settlement Orders provided to the Court by the offender (Exhibit 1 at page 11 and Exhibits 2 and 3) provide the basis for findings (12) and (13).
    

Consideration

20. In determining the sentence in this matter, it is necessary to (1) consider both the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender before (2) assessing what Kovi suggests should be the starting point, then (3) taking into account what are the aggravating or mitigating factors.
    

Objective factors

21. As to the circumstances of the offence, it is clear the accused was in the company of others when the offence was committed. From the weapons carried by those persons, being one axe and multiple bush knives, it is clear they were going to injure the accused and not just talk to him. Simply stated, the victim did not have any chance of survival when he was attacked. That attack was out of all proportion to the incident the previous day.
    
22. While the fact that this was a charge of wilful murder necessarily means that the victim died, it is necessary to reiterate the sanctity of human life, and not that compensation may lessen the pain for the victim’s family and relatives but does not bring the victim back. Further, murder resulting from the use of a bush knife is an unacceptably prevalent offence in this country and that warrants deterrence.
    

Subjective factors

23. The circumstances of the offender are that he is now 52, has three wives and ten biological children plus Jackson Tapulya who he regards as if he were his son. The offender was a teacher and was residing with his third wife at the time when the offence was committed.
    

Application of Kovi

24. This case presents as containing all the elements of category two and could be said to fall within category three because of an axe being one of the weapons, although it does not appear that any other offence of violence was committed.
    
25. Due to offender not acting alone, this case is assessed as being at the top of the range for category two, which suggests a starting point of 30 years. It is noted that was the sentence imposed in Kilala.
    

Aggravating and mitigating factors

26. In this case, the aggravating factors are (1) the offender not acting alone, and (2) the weapons used, but they have been taken into consideration when determining the starting point.
    
27. Going through each of the mitigating factors suggest on behalf of the offender. The fact that the offender is a first offender is not a mitigating factor: that only indicates the absence of an aggravating factor. Secondly, there was a plea of guilty but that was a late plea, being entered at the outset of a trial. Thirdly, the suggestion there was no pre-planning is rejected. Likewise, the suggestion that the offender acted alone is rejected. It is accepted that the offender expressed remorse. There was no provocation that warranted the response. It is clear significant compensation had been paid.
    
28. Thus, the mitigating factors are (1) a plea of guilty at the outset of the trial, (2) the expression of remorse, (3) payment of significant compensation, totalling 152 pigs plus cash of K125,000, and (4) the loss of two houses that were damaged by fire.
    
29. Kovi considered the question of what role compensation should play in relation to sentencing. The position may be summarised in four propositions:

(1) Compensation is not an alternative to the application of the criminal law.
(2) Local customs may make compensation relevant for sentencing purposes.
(3) The form and amount of compensation must be considered.
(4) Compensation can be regard as a special mitigating factor.

Sentence

30. In relation to the use of a knife, the Supreme Court made the position clear in Marangi v The State (2002) PGSC 15; SC702 when it was said:
    

“...a lot of lives are being lost in this country from the use of a knife than with any other weapon. Therefore, a strong and punitive sentence is required.”

31. For the reasons indicated above, the Court starts with a term of imprisonment for 30 years and reduces that by 9 years to allow for (1) the plea of guilty, (2) the expressions of remorse, (3) the destruction of two homes and (4) the special mitigating factor of substantial compensation.
    
32. That gives a sentence of imprisonment for 21 years and deducting the period which the offender has spent in custody of one year gives a period remaining to be served of 20 years.
    

Sentenced accordingly.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor

Lawyer for the defendant: Public Solicitor