THE QUEEN v. DANILO REYES (D2) AND OTHERS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Kempster, J.:

1. On May 1st, 1984 the three applicants and two others were required to plead to an indictment charging them with robbery. All pleaded not guilty save Danilo Reyes who pleaded guilty. The trial of the four who had pleaded not guilty then commenced before Barnes, J. and a jury. On May 3rd and in the course of the voire dire Ines and Roxas indicated a wish to change their plea. On May 9th, in the absence of the jury, Mario Ines and Francisco Roxas formally changed their pleas to guilty and it is to be assumed that, as they were in the charge of the jury at that time, formal verdicts of guilty were entered. The trial then continued only as against Rogelio Manlapas and the other accused. On May 10th, in the presence of the jury, Regelio Manlapas changed his plea to guilty and again it is to be presumed that a formal verdict of guilty was given by the jury in relation to him. Thereafter the trial continued only as against the accused person with whom this court is not concerned. On May 17th that person was acquitted by the jury. On the 23rd the applicants, all of whom were represented by counsel, were brought before the learned judge for sentence. A summary of facts relating to their part in the robbery was agreed and may be summarised as follows.

2. On December 18th, 1983 a  group of men travelled to Hong Kong from Manila. That group included the applicants. On the afternoon of the 22nd of that month the J. J. Jewellery Company premises in Carnarvon Road were open for business. Three staff were serving and two customers were in the shop. The front door was locked but when two men appeared at the door indicating that they wanted to enter the door was opened by remote control from the inside. The two men, one of whom was Danilo Reyes, entered. A short time later two more men appeared at the shop door. As they appeared to be friends of those already admitted they were also allowed into the shop followed by two other men. Once inside five of the six men produced knives and said that they were set on robbery. Two members of the staff were forced into a back-room at knifepoint and there blindfolded and their hands and legs bound. The two customers were also tied up and guarded by one of the robbers. A large quantity of jewellery was taken from the display counters. While all this was going on another member of the staff and another customer entered. They too were tied up and guarded. Two of the staff managed to free themselves and actuate the alarm. The robbers sought to make their escape but the staff managed to apprehend Mario Ines. He was armed with a knife and was the robber who had been guarding the staff at the rear of the shop.

3. The value of the jewellery stolen was about 1.5 million dollars of which only some $30,000 worth was recovered. By going straight to the airport and intercepting the next flight leaving for Manila the police were able to arrest Danilo Reyes, Mario Ines, Rogelio Manlapas and Francisco Roxas.

4. Counsel addressed the court in mitigation pointing out that the applicants had been used by clever and unscrupulous men who had kept their passports and themselves taken pains to avoid direct involvement. The difficulties of Filipinos in Hong Kong correctional establishments were emphasized as was the tragic effect of their cupidity on their families at home; involving in one instance a murder. Recognition was sought of the successive pleas of guilty. These considerations are again articulately and eloquently rehearsed in the grounds of appeal written by the several applicants.

5. While he accepted that the applicants were pawns in a game carefully planned and played for high stakes and of relatively poor intelligence and attainments Barnes, J. pointed out that some person or persons had got away with over a million Hong Kong dollars-worth of jewellery as a result of their efforts; efforts which involved the display of knives. He imposed sentences of six years on all but Manlapas who was the last, by one day, to change his plea. He received an extra year in consequence. Reyes had pleaded guilty some eight days before Ines and Roxas. Having regard to the strength of the evidence available as against each applicant we consider that these pleas rather indicate a recognition of the inevitable than remorse and therefore carry little weight. We do not think, however, that it was appropriate to differentiate between the applicants. Sentences of between six and eight years would have been well within guidelines given by this court. As it is all applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused save that of Manlapas. His application is allowed. We treat this as the hearing his appeal and a sentence of six years will be substituted for that of seven.