HKSAR v. BORROMEO RUBY-ANN UNCIANO

DCCC 339/2025

[2026] HKDC 187

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 339 OF 2025

------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------------

Charges

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to two charges, namely:

(i) Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210; and

(ii) Possession of offensive weapon with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228.

2.  The Defendant’s plea of guilty to both charges was tendered at the first available court hearing.

Background Facts

3.  The Defendant had been working in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper since 2013.  At the material time, she was employed by PW1 and PW2, a married couple, and resided with them at a flat in Kwun Tong.

4.  The Defendant commenced employment with PW1 and PW2 in July 2024. She lived in the same flat as her employers and, by virtue of her employment and residence, had access to various parts of the flat, including the bedroom where valuables belonging to PW1 were kept.

Facts for Charge 1 – Theft

5.  On 20 July 2024, PW1 checked that a number of valuable items, including cash and jewellery, were securely kept in the drawer of a cabinet in her bedroom.  These items included, among other things, cash in United States dollars and Hong Kong dollars, a diamond ring, gold items, jewellery, and a handbag.

6.  Between 25 July 2024 and 8 September 2024, the Defendant dishonestly appropriated those items without the knowledge or consent of PW1.  The total value of the stolen property was approximately HK$545,000.

7.  On 8 September 2024, PW1 discovered that the items were missing. At around 9 p.m. on 9 September 2024, PW1 confronted the Defendant.  Following that confrontation, the Defendant surrendered certain stolen items to PW1, including a diamond ring valued at HK$400,000, a gold pellet valued at HK$25,000, and a gold bar valued at HK$50,000.

8.  Later the same evening, at about 11:30 p.m., PW1 found four pawn tickets in the Defendant’s handbag, raising the suspicion that other stolen items had been pawned.  The Police were then called.

9.  Upon the Defendant’s arrest and subsequent search at Kwun Tong Police Station in the early hours of 10 September 2024, further stolen items were found concealed under the Defendant’s clothing.

10.  On the following day, 11 September 2024, while dealing with the Defendant’s belongings in the presence of an agent from the foreign domestic helper agency, PW1 found two additional pawn tickets.  It was subsequently confirmed by the shopkeeper of Shing Fung Pawn Shop that the Defendant had pawned a number of the stolen items there.  Those items were later recovered and returned to PW1.

11.  In a video-recorded interview conducted in the presence of interpreters, the Defendant admitted stealing Items 2 to 13.  She initially denied stealing Item 1, being the cash, but she has since accepted responsibility for that item as well.

12.  The Defence submits that all the stolen items were taken as part of the same course of conduct.  There is no evidence of repeated or separate offending beyond the 6 weeks as particularized under the charge.  I accept this submission. 

Facts for Charge 2 – Possession of Offensive Weapon with Intent

13.  Charge 2 arose out of events later on 9 September 2024.  After PW1 decided to dismiss the Defendant and asked her to pack and leave the flat, the Defendant became emotionally distressed.

14.  The Defendant suddenly ran into the kitchen. PW1 and PW2 followed her immediately. The Defendant then picked up an oyster knife from the kitchen sink using her left hand and pointed it towards PW1.

15.  The incident was brief. No injury was caused, and there was no physical contact.  Nonetheless, the Defendant was in possession of an offensive weapon with intent to use it for an unlawful purpose, and the offence is a serious one notwithstanding its short duration.

Personal Circumstances of the Defendant

16.  The Defendant is 44 years old.  She was born and raised in the Philippines. She received education up to college level.  She can speak and write English, although her first language is Tagalog.

17.  She is married but separated from her husband, with whom she has no contact.  She has a son aged 23, who is completing a college degree in Information Technology, and a daughter aged 18 in high school and about to commence college education.

18.  They reside with the Defendant’s grandmother and maternal aunt in the Philippines. The Defendant has been financially supporting her children by sending a portion of her income to her family so that they can care for and educate them. Her parents live elsewhere and are not directly involved in the children’s upbringing.

19.  The Defendant first came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper in 2013.  PW1 was her fifth employer.  She worked for her first employer for five years and completed contracts with her second, third, and fourth employers without incident.  She has no previous criminal convictions in Hong Kong or elsewhere.

20.  The Defendant candidly admits that she committed the offence of theft out of concern for her family’s financial situation and her children’s education.  I accept that such circumstances do not constitute mitigation in law.  However, they provide context and explain how a person who had otherwise lived a law-abiding and productive life for many years succumbed to temptation.

21.  The Defendant has expressed genuine remorse for her actions.  She made frank admissions during the police investigation and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  I am satisfied that her remorse is genuine.

Sentencing for Charge 1 – Theft

22.  This was a serious offence involving a substantial sum of money and valuables.  The Defendant was in a position of trust as a domestic helper residing in her employer’s home.  The breach of trust is a significant aggravating feature.

23.  The total value of the stolen property, HK$545,000, places this offence within the sentencing band for thefts involving values between HK$250,000 and HK$1,000,000, for which immediate custodial sentences are inevitable (HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2008] 1 HKC 113).

24.  Taking into account the value of the stolen items and the return of the several valuable items by the defendant, the breach of trust, and the absence of special aggravating features relating to the offence itself, I adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

25.  After applying the full one-third discount for the Defendant’s plea of guilty, the appropriate sentence for Charge 1 is 18 months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing for Charge 2 – Possession of Offensive Weapon with Intent

26.  Although no injury was caused, possession of an offensive weapon with intent is a serious offence.  The Defendant’s conduct occurred in a moment of panic and emotional distress, but the incident was brief.

27.  There is no applicable sentencing guideline directly on point. Having regard to all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.

28.  After applying the full one-third discount for the Defendant’s plea of guilty, the appropriate sentence for Charge 2 is 8 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

29.  I have considered the principle of totality. The two offences are closely connected in time and circumstance, arising out of the same series of events on 9 September 2024.

30.  In all the circumstances, I order that 2 months of the sentence for Charge 2 shall be consecutive to the sentence of 18 months for Charge 1, to arrive at a total sentence of 20 months, which I am satisfied it would properly reflect the total criminality.