HKSAR v. MALONZO RYAN F. AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1549/2025

[2026] HKDC 762

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1549 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The two defendants of each pleaded guilty to what appears to be a straightforward burglary that occurred at a premises in Sai Ying Pun.

2.  The facts that have been agreed to show that the premises in question was a shop called “Green Kennedy Town” which is at On Ning Lane in Sai Ying Pun.  The burglary been occurring between the 20^th and 21^st March of 2025.  The premises themselves have been locked in the evening of 20 March 2025.  It is secured by a locking roller shutter at the main entrance and a wooden back door.  The next morning, it was found that the back door had been prised open and that an iPad with a SIM card had gone missing.  Further investigation showed there were two screwdrivers were found in the vicinity of the back wooden door and it is assumed that that was how entry was gained to the premises. 

3.  The defendants before me today were identified by way of fingerprint examination which led to their arrests.  The 1^st defendant gave admissions that he had entered the shop to steal the iPad and used the screwdrivers to prise the open back door and the 2^nd defendant also participated entering the shop and was responsible as a lookout. 

4.  So the facts of the burglary are somewhat straightforward.  It is a commercial premises and there was nobody in the premises at the time of the entry. 

5.  As far as the defendants’ backgrounds are concerned, they both have criminal records.  The 1^st defendant has a somewhat poor criminal record dated back to 2018, the convictions both in respect of drug offences and also the offence of dishonesty, has been granted probation, has been granted suspended sentence which in fact is breached.  At the present moment, the last conviction was in 2022 and he has been remanded in custody, as I understand.  He has not been treated recently for his drug dependency but one assumes that the period in custody will have given an opportunity to free himself from the drugs.  The 1^st defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on the last time he was convicted but this offence cannot lead to the activation of that suspended sentence.

6.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he has been found to be a person with previous convictions dating back to 7 October 2025 when he was convicted of offences of drugs and theft and was sentenced to a suspended sentence.  This offence does not put him in breach of the suspended sentence but it is a factor to consider in sentencing.  So neither of these men come before me as men of clear record. 

7.  There is mitigation which has been advanced but the clearest form of mitigation is the fact that defendants pleaded guilty and made a full admission of the offence when they were arrested and they both concede they were involved in a joint enterprise to commit this burglary.

8.  The 1^st defendant is a 39 years’ old man, he is originally from the Philippines who came to Hong Kong in 1994. He is a Hong Kong Permanent Resident.  He is a married man with children but I understand his wife and daughter have returned to the Philippines and so he still has responsibility towards them.  Defendant, I am told, has been on remand for some 11 months.  He shows remorse by his plea of guilty today and asks for a lenient sentence.

9.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he also advances mitigation before the court today.  He points to the nature of the offence that has been committed, the simplicity of it.  This defendant was born in Manila on 10 April 1976 and as a result of that he will be turning 50 in April, so I understand.  He is here on a dependant visa from his wife who works in Hong Kong and they have three daughters.  The 2^nd defendant has only recently become involved in criminality, which is unusual for a man of his age, and prior to this would of course been able to say he was of clear record but obviously cannot now.  I take into account the observations made in the course of the rest of the submission by Mr Pannu. 

10.  Now turning to the approach to the sentencing. It is common ground that this is a non-domestic premises burglary where the normal sentencing starting point for sentence be one of 30 months’ imprisonment and then the court must consider if there are any aggravating factors which would enhance that sentence in existence.  And secondly, if any mitigating factors exist which would allow the court to reduce the sentence from that starting point. 

11.  The defence make the point that the starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment must involve some element of planning in itself and that is pre-built into the sentencing starting point.  I take that point and I see that there has been in previous sentencing these kind of cases some flexibility around that starting point.

12.  I will take the following approach:  I take into account the facts of this offence.  There does seem to be some element of spontaneity to their approach to the premises and it is a relatively simple form of burglary.  I take my initial starting point at 27 months’ imprisonment.  There is of course an aggravating factor, the fact the defendants committed this offence as a joint enterprise.  I will enhance the sentence by 3 months to take into account that factor.

13.  Both defendants have, as I have said, indicated their pleas from an early stage and have shown remorse, so entitled to a full one-third discount from that figure.  So final sentence at the end of the day will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment for the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant.