HKSAR v. VILLOTA FERDINAND VALENCIA AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1013/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1013 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Both of you have pleaded guilty to one offence of joint theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  D1, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of breach of a deportation order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115.

3.  You have each admitted the facts and I convicted you of the respective charges.

4.  The facts are as follows.

5.  At about 4.42 pm on 17 September last, PC 34648, who was PW2, and fellow officers saw you both staring at the belongings of pedestrians and talking to each other and Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.  The officers were in plainclothes. 

6.  You were then seen to follow a male, Lam Chung-yin (PW1), who was carrying a shoulder bag.  As Mr Lam, who was PW1, waited at the junction of Haiphong Road and Hankow Road, you, D1, took out a map (which is E1) from your shoulder bag, unzipped PW1’s shoulder bag and, using E1 as a cover, took out his wallet.  That wallet contained $1,370, an ID card, a Home Visit Permit, driving licence and five bank cards.  At the same time, D2, you used your handbag to cover D1’s act.

7.  At this point, PW1 realised his shoulder bag was open and his wallet was missing.  D1, you then threw the wallet to the ground and both of you fled.  However, you were intercepted by the police officers.

8.  Under caution, D1, you admitted stealing the wallet and asked for a chance.  D2, you claimed not to be involved.

9.  Both of you had come to Hong Kong on 12 September last.

10.  In a cautioned statement, D1, you admitted stealing the wallet, as your income was not sufficient to support your family and that is charge 1.

11.  D1, your fingerprints were checked and it was revealed that you were previously known as Ronald Lopez Reyes and Malabanan Isidoro Nido.  A deportation order had been issued against Ronald Lopez Reyes, prohibiting him from being in Hong Kong after 16 September 1986.

12.  You admitted the second charge in a further interview under caution.  You said you came to Hong Kong to look for a job but could not find one.

13.  D1, you admitted to 21 previous convictions on 11 occasions, seven similar to the 1st charge and 10 similar to the 2nd charge.

14.  D2, you are of clear record. 

15.  Miss Chan then entered mitigation on behalf of each of you. 

16.  She dealt first with you, D1.  She told me that you are 55 years of age, married with seven children and you worked as a taxi driver for 15 years in the Philippines.  Previously, the whole family had been employed in farming.  She said that your income as a taxi driver fluctuated, so you came to Hong Kong to seek a job.  She told that you have cousin in Hong Kong.

17.  D2, you are 20 years of age, single and in your second year at college where you are hoping to qualify as a chef.  You broke up with your boyfriend so you bought a plane ticket to Macau to seek amusement. From Macau, you came to Hong Kong with D1. 

18.  I am told that you became acquainted with each other when you sat by each other on the plane from the Philippines.  You both spent a day in Macau.  D2, you were due to leave but you missed your ferry and the flight home.  That was on 13 September.  Both of you then found yourself short of money:  you, D2, because you had brought only limited funds and you, D1, because you had been unable to find a job.

19.  Miss Chan accepts that you, D1, have many similar convictions and that it is an aggravating feature that you acted in concert.

20.  On your behalf, she submitted that this was not an organised crime and very unsophisticated, that the wallet had been returned, so PW1 lost nothing.  She submitted that the best mitigation, of course, was your pleas of guilty.

21.  On behalf of both of you, she asked for leniency and she suggested, on your behalf, D1, that at least part of your sentences should be concurrent.

22.  I turn to the sentences.

23.  D1, you are a mature man of 55 years of age, with an appalling criminal record in Hong Kong.  I do note, however, that it is some years since your last conviction.  However, looking at that record, it is clear that you are dishonest in the extreme and paid no regard at all to this deportation order.  Whilst on the other hand, you, D2, are a young lady of clear record.

24.  Looking at all that had occurred and weighing all these factors in the balance, I can only conclude that you, D1, led D2 astray in this regard.  You acted in concert, that is for sure. 

25.  In your favour, D1, I do note, however, you were cooperative when stopped. 

26.  However, you, D1, have committed distinct and separate offences and I will find no reason at all to make them anything other than consecutive.

27.  I also note the roles that you played in the commission of the first offence.  Yours, D2, was very much a supporting role to the main role played by D1.

28.  The sentences, therefore, will be somewhat different to reflect your roles and your records.

29.  D1, stand up, please.  D1, on Charge 1, I take a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 14 for your plea of guilty.

30.  In respect of Charge 2, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment (that is, 36 months), reduced to 2 years 24 months’ imprisonment. 

31.  These will be served consecutively, that is, a total of 38 months’ imprisonment.

32.  D2, your role is, as I said, a lesser role.  You are young and you have hitherto clear record in Hong Kong.

33.  I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 10.

34.  You will go to prison for 10 months.