A DCCC 450/2016 A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
CRIMINAL CASE NO 450 OF 2016
C C
----------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
PULIDO Rannie Laig
(also known as
F F
NAVALES Felix Generalao,
ASINERO Jeffrey Taga Amo and
G CRUZ Mario Jr Reyes) G
----------------------
H H
Before: HH Judge Stanley Chan
I
Date: 5 July 2016 I
Present: Mr Chau King-fung Fergus, PP of the Department of
Justice, for HKSAR
J Mr Yuen Kin-hong Edmond, of Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen J
& Co, for the defendant
Offence: (1) to (15) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
K K
L --------------------- L
Reasons for Sentence
M M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a total of 15 counts
O O
of breach of deportation order, contrary to Section 43(1)(a) of
the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. The deportation order was
P P
dated 17 June 1999.
Q Q
2. The dates of the offences are listed hereunder:
R R
(1) 27 January 2015;
S (2) 9 February 2015; S
(3) 10 April 2015;
T T
(4) 23 April 2015;
(5) 12 October 2015;
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 1 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A (6) 23 October 2015; A
(7) 4 November 2015;
B (8) 16 November 2015; B
(9) 27 November 2015;
C C
(10) 8 December 2015;
(11) 27 January 2016;
D D
(12) 3 February 2016;
E (13) 15 February 2016; E
(14) 26 February 2016; and
F (15) 18 March 2016. F
G G
The Prosecution case
H H
3. The defendant was intercepted at Lo Wu Terminal when
I
he attempted to leave Hong Kong on 21 March 2016 using a I
passport of the Republic of the Philippines (numbered EB4964210)
J in the name of Pulido Rannie Laig (ID-1). J
K 4. By means of fingerprint comparison, it was revealed K
that the defendant was the subject of a deportation order in the
L L
name of Navales Felix Generalao (ID-2) on 17 June 1999. The said
deportation order prohibits the defendant from being in Hong
M M
Kong at any time thereafter. The defendant was given notice of
N the said order and was deported back to the Philippines on 27 N
July 1999.
O O
5. The travel index record revealed that the defendant
P P
had used ID-1 to enter Hong Kong 15 times between 27 January
2015 and 18 March 2016. The movements are as follows.
Q Q
R 6. On 27 January 2015, the defendant entered into Hong R
Kong via the Hong Kong Airport using the abovementioned
S passport. He left Hong Kong on 9 February 2015 via Lo Wu S
Terminal (1st charge).
T T
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 2 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 7. On 9 February 2015, the defendant used the same A
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
B Kong on 17 February 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (2nd charge). B
C C
8. On 10 April 2015, the defendant used the same passport
to enter Hong Kong via the airport. He left Hong Kong on 23
D D
April via Lo Wu Terminal (3rd charge).
E E
9. On 23 April 2015, the defendant used the same passport
F to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong Kong on 2 F
May 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (4th charge).
G G
10. On 12 October 2015, the defendant used the same
H H
passport to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He left
I
Hong Kong on 23 October 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (5th charge). I
J 11. On 23 October 2015, the defendant used the same J
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
K Kong on 4 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (6th charge). K
L L
12. On 4 November 2015, the defendant used the same
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
M M
Kong on 16 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (7th charge).
N N
13. On 16 November 2015, the defendant used the same
O passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong O
Kong on 27 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (8th charge).
P P
14. On 27 November 2015, the defendant used the same
Q Q
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
R Kong on 8 December 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (9th charge). R
S 15. On 8 December 2015, the defendant used the same S
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
T T
Kong on 15 December 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (10th
charge).
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 3 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 16. On 22 January 2016, the defendant used the same A
passport to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He left
B Hong Kong on 3 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (11th charge). B
C C
17. On 3 February 2016, the defendant used the same
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
D D
Kong on 15 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (12th charge).
E E
18. The CCTV footage at the Lo Wu Terminal revealed that
F it was the defendant who used ID-1 to enter Hong Kong at about F
1529 hours on 3 February 2016.
G G
19. On 15 February 2016, the defendant used the same
H H
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
I
Kong on 26 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (13th charge). I
J 20. On 26 February 2016, the defendant used the same J
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
K Kong on 28 February 2016 via the Hong Kong Airport (14th K
charge).
L L
21. On 18 March 2016, the defendant used the same passport
M M
to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He stayed till and
N attempted to leave Hong Kong on 31 March 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal N
(15th charge).
O O
22. Under caution, the defendant claimed that ID-1 is his
P P
“genuine identity”. He was in Hong Kong on 21 November 2015 (8th
charge), 3 December 2015 (9th charge) and 17 February 2016 (13th
Q Q
charge) respectively.
R R
Mitigation
S S
23. Mr Yuen, defence lawyer, submitted in court a written
T T
submission on mitigation. The defendant is a Philippines
national and is aged 47. He is married and has five children.
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 4 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A The defendant is the sole breadwinner of the family and he A
operated a chicken farm in the Philippines, with the average
B income of about US$200 to US$300 per month. It was said that the B
defendant came to Hong Kong for the purpose of going to China to
C C
purchase goods such as clothes, shoes and bags for resale in the
Philippines.
D D
E 24. The most significant mitigation factor is the E
defendant’s guilty pleas to all the charges.
F F
25. The defence referred to HKSAR v Joned Asri, CACC
G G
345/2012, and HKSAR v Delante Antonio Jr Arana, DCCC 59/2016,
for reference.
H H
I
26. The defence also tendered the defendant’s own I
mitigation letter and submitted that “if the court is minded to
J enhance the overall starting point because of the previous J
conviction of the defendant, it shall not exceed 30 months.”
K K
Sentence
L L
27. Defendant is a national of the Philippines and aged
M M
47. He claimed to be a retail seller in the antecedent statement
N and refused to disclose his education background and health N
condition.
O O
28. The defendant has various aliases, but the criminal
P P
record of the defendant, for some reasons unknown to this court,
only states that the name of the defendant is Navales Felix
Q Q
Generalao. He had five previous convictions back in 1998 with
R two similar. R
S 29. Upon enquiry, this court was informed by the S
prosecution that in February 2004, when the defendant was
T T
convicted of one count of breach of deportation order and was
sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, the defendant was using
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 5 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A the passport in the name of Asinero Jeffrey Taga Amo, while in A
December 2010 the defendant was convicted of the same offence
B when he used the passport of another name, Cruz Mario Jr Reyes. B
C C
30. I was told that the Philippines consulate in Hong Kong
could not say if the passports so used were false or not. Hence,
D D
the defendant literally was using passports of four different
E names. E
F 31. A further check with the TIC of the defendant (Exhibit F
MFI-1) shows that, before the date of offence of the first
G G
charge in this charge sheet (that is, 27 January 2015), the
defendant had been entering Hong Kong on six occasions from
H H
October 2008 to October 2010. This court was told that the
I
defendant was using the passport in the name of Pulido, but with I
different passport number. These six entries were not subject of
J any charges. J
K 32. This background information shows that the defendant K
is in blatant disregard of the deportation order issued in 1999.
L L
He was able to use various means and various passports to
manipulate the loopholes of the current Immigration control
M M
mechanism or checking.
N N
33. There is no information as to where did the defendant
O stay in Hong Kong and what did he do, but, from the facts of O
this case, it is abundantly clear that the defendant spent more
P P
time in Hong Kong, relatively speaking, on these 15 occasions.
His departures from Hong Kong might have something to do with
Q Q
the restrictions of stay in Hong Kong for tourists.
R R
34. Be that as it may, it is clear that the defendant is
S not just a repeat offender. He also used various passports under S
at least four different names to enter into Hong Kong. I would
T T
not speculate if the defendant also used passports of any other
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 6 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A names to enter Hong Kong in order to circumvent the effect of A
the deportation order.
B B
35. I have considered the sentencing considerations as
C C
elicited in HKSAR v Joned Asri, CACC 345/2012, whereby the
appellant, who faced 10 counts of the same offence, was given a
D D
total of 33 months.
E E
36. In HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013, where the
F appellant was charged, inter alia, with one count of a breach of F
deportation order, the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 20 of
G G
the judgment:
H H
“The aggravating features were significant. This was
I
not less than the seventh occasion of coming back into I
Hong Kong in breach of the deportation order and it is
J clear that the slightly increased sentences on some of J
the previous convictions have served not a jot to deter
K the applicant. We think for the Section 43 offence, K
the appropriate (aggravated) sentence before discount
L L
for the plea was one of 4 years’ imprisonment. We will
take a point of 42 months as the point before deduction
M M
for the plea. Giving credit for the plea of guilty,
N the appropriate sentence for the Section 43 offence is N
one of 28 months’ imprisonment.”
O O
37. In the present case, the aggravating features are
P P
obvious. The defendant used a passport under a different name
from the deportation order. Between January 2015 and March 2016
Q Q
the defendant used the same passport to enter and leave Hong
R Kong as he wanted on 15 occasions. That was done on top of the R
other six occasions prior to January 2015, as shown in the TIC
S record. The defendant had two similar convictions and, worse S
still, he was using passports of two different names. The 12
T T
months’ imprisonment imposed earlier on apparently could not
serve “a jot to deter” the defendant.
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 7 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 38. In his mitigation letter, the defendant tendered “the A
deep and sincere apology” for breaching the deportation order,
B and he regretted for the suffering that his family has to bear B
because of his wrongdoing.
C C
39. But the defendant’s wrongdoing, as far as the present
D D
case is concerned, started from July 1999, and I have no clue as
E to whether the defendant’s wrongdoing would end in March 2016 E
once and for all.
F F
40. As the defendant may well know, the most important
G G
mitigating factor is his guilty plea, for which he is entitled
to get one-third discount in sentence, even though the evidence
H H
against him is overwhelming.
I I
41. In my view, to simplify the sentencing process, I
J would adopt a global approach to take into account of all the J
similar offences in the charge sheet, instead of considering a
K sentence for each and every count of the offence. K
L L
42. Taking all factors into account, especially the fact
that the defendant being a repeat offender, I would adopt a
M M
starting point of 3½ years (42 months) for each and every count.
N N
43. Given his plea, I sentence the defendant to an
O imprisonment term of 28 months for each count, and the sentence O
is to be served concurrently.
P P
Q Q
R R
(Stanley Chan)
S
District Judge S
T T
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 8 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A DCCC 450/2016 A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
CRIMINAL CASE NO 450 OF 2016
C C
----------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
PULIDO Rannie Laig
(also known as
F F
NAVALES Felix Generalao,
ASINERO Jeffrey Taga Amo and
G CRUZ Mario Jr Reyes) G
----------------------
H H
Before: HH Judge Stanley Chan
I
Date: 5 July 2016 I
Present: Mr Chau King-fung Fergus, PP of the Department of
Justice, for HKSAR
J Mr Yuen Kin-hong Edmond, of Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen J
& Co, for the defendant
Offence: (1) to (15) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
K K
L --------------------- L
Reasons for Sentence
M M
---------------------
N N
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a total of 15 counts
O O
of breach of deportation order, contrary to Section 43(1)(a) of
the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. The deportation order was
P P
dated 17 June 1999.
Q Q
2. The dates of the offences are listed hereunder:
R R
(1) 27 January 2015;
S (2) 9 February 2015; S
(3) 10 April 2015;
T T
(4) 23 April 2015;
(5) 12 October 2015;
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 1 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A (6) 23 October 2015; A
(7) 4 November 2015;
B (8) 16 November 2015; B
(9) 27 November 2015;
C C
(10) 8 December 2015;
(11) 27 January 2016;
D D
(12) 3 February 2016;
E (13) 15 February 2016; E
(14) 26 February 2016; and
F (15) 18 March 2016. F
G G
The Prosecution case
H H
3. The defendant was intercepted at Lo Wu Terminal when
I
he attempted to leave Hong Kong on 21 March 2016 using a I
passport of the Republic of the Philippines (numbered EB4964210)
J in the name of Pulido Rannie Laig (ID-1). J
K 4. By means of fingerprint comparison, it was revealed K
that the defendant was the subject of a deportation order in the
L L
name of Navales Felix Generalao (ID-2) on 17 June 1999. The said
deportation order prohibits the defendant from being in Hong
M M
Kong at any time thereafter. The defendant was given notice of
N the said order and was deported back to the Philippines on 27 N
July 1999.
O O
5. The travel index record revealed that the defendant
P P
had used ID-1 to enter Hong Kong 15 times between 27 January
2015 and 18 March 2016. The movements are as follows.
Q Q
R 6. On 27 January 2015, the defendant entered into Hong R
Kong via the Hong Kong Airport using the abovementioned
S passport. He left Hong Kong on 9 February 2015 via Lo Wu S
Terminal (1st charge).
T T
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 2 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 7. On 9 February 2015, the defendant used the same A
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
B Kong on 17 February 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (2nd charge). B
C C
8. On 10 April 2015, the defendant used the same passport
to enter Hong Kong via the airport. He left Hong Kong on 23
D D
April via Lo Wu Terminal (3rd charge).
E E
9. On 23 April 2015, the defendant used the same passport
F to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong Kong on 2 F
May 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (4th charge).
G G
10. On 12 October 2015, the defendant used the same
H H
passport to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He left
I
Hong Kong on 23 October 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (5th charge). I
J 11. On 23 October 2015, the defendant used the same J
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
K Kong on 4 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (6th charge). K
L L
12. On 4 November 2015, the defendant used the same
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
M M
Kong on 16 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (7th charge).
N N
13. On 16 November 2015, the defendant used the same
O passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong O
Kong on 27 November 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (8th charge).
P P
14. On 27 November 2015, the defendant used the same
Q Q
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
R Kong on 8 December 2015 via Lo Wu Terminal (9th charge). R
S 15. On 8 December 2015, the defendant used the same S
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
T T
Kong on 15 December 2015 via the Hong Kong Airport (10th
charge).
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 3 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 16. On 22 January 2016, the defendant used the same A
passport to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He left
B Hong Kong on 3 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (11th charge). B
C C
17. On 3 February 2016, the defendant used the same
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
D D
Kong on 15 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (12th charge).
E E
18. The CCTV footage at the Lo Wu Terminal revealed that
F it was the defendant who used ID-1 to enter Hong Kong at about F
1529 hours on 3 February 2016.
G G
19. On 15 February 2016, the defendant used the same
H H
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
I
Kong on 26 February 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal (13th charge). I
J 20. On 26 February 2016, the defendant used the same J
passport to enter Hong Kong via Lo Wu Terminal. He left Hong
K Kong on 28 February 2016 via the Hong Kong Airport (14th K
charge).
L L
21. On 18 March 2016, the defendant used the same passport
M M
to enter Hong Kong via the Hong Kong Airport. He stayed till and
N attempted to leave Hong Kong on 31 March 2016 via Lo Wu Terminal N
(15th charge).
O O
22. Under caution, the defendant claimed that ID-1 is his
P P
“genuine identity”. He was in Hong Kong on 21 November 2015 (8th
charge), 3 December 2015 (9th charge) and 17 February 2016 (13th
Q Q
charge) respectively.
R R
Mitigation
S S
23. Mr Yuen, defence lawyer, submitted in court a written
T T
submission on mitigation. The defendant is a Philippines
national and is aged 47. He is married and has five children.
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 4 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A The defendant is the sole breadwinner of the family and he A
operated a chicken farm in the Philippines, with the average
B income of about US$200 to US$300 per month. It was said that the B
defendant came to Hong Kong for the purpose of going to China to
C C
purchase goods such as clothes, shoes and bags for resale in the
Philippines.
D D
E 24. The most significant mitigation factor is the E
defendant’s guilty pleas to all the charges.
F F
25. The defence referred to HKSAR v Joned Asri, CACC
G G
345/2012, and HKSAR v Delante Antonio Jr Arana, DCCC 59/2016,
for reference.
H H
I
26. The defence also tendered the defendant’s own I
mitigation letter and submitted that “if the court is minded to
J enhance the overall starting point because of the previous J
conviction of the defendant, it shall not exceed 30 months.”
K K
Sentence
L L
27. Defendant is a national of the Philippines and aged
M M
47. He claimed to be a retail seller in the antecedent statement
N and refused to disclose his education background and health N
condition.
O O
28. The defendant has various aliases, but the criminal
P P
record of the defendant, for some reasons unknown to this court,
only states that the name of the defendant is Navales Felix
Q Q
Generalao. He had five previous convictions back in 1998 with
R two similar. R
S 29. Upon enquiry, this court was informed by the S
prosecution that in February 2004, when the defendant was
T T
convicted of one count of breach of deportation order and was
sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, the defendant was using
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 5 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A the passport in the name of Asinero Jeffrey Taga Amo, while in A
December 2010 the defendant was convicted of the same offence
B when he used the passport of another name, Cruz Mario Jr Reyes. B
C C
30. I was told that the Philippines consulate in Hong Kong
could not say if the passports so used were false or not. Hence,
D D
the defendant literally was using passports of four different
E names. E
F 31. A further check with the TIC of the defendant (Exhibit F
MFI-1) shows that, before the date of offence of the first
G G
charge in this charge sheet (that is, 27 January 2015), the
defendant had been entering Hong Kong on six occasions from
H H
October 2008 to October 2010. This court was told that the
I
defendant was using the passport in the name of Pulido, but with I
different passport number. These six entries were not subject of
J any charges. J
K 32. This background information shows that the defendant K
is in blatant disregard of the deportation order issued in 1999.
L L
He was able to use various means and various passports to
manipulate the loopholes of the current Immigration control
M M
mechanism or checking.
N N
33. There is no information as to where did the defendant
O stay in Hong Kong and what did he do, but, from the facts of O
this case, it is abundantly clear that the defendant spent more
P P
time in Hong Kong, relatively speaking, on these 15 occasions.
His departures from Hong Kong might have something to do with
Q Q
the restrictions of stay in Hong Kong for tourists.
R R
34. Be that as it may, it is clear that the defendant is
S not just a repeat offender. He also used various passports under S
at least four different names to enter into Hong Kong. I would
T T
not speculate if the defendant also used passports of any other
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 6 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A names to enter Hong Kong in order to circumvent the effect of A
the deportation order.
B B
35. I have considered the sentencing considerations as
C C
elicited in HKSAR v Joned Asri, CACC 345/2012, whereby the
appellant, who faced 10 counts of the same offence, was given a
D D
total of 33 months.
E E
36. In HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son, CACC 348/2013, where the
F appellant was charged, inter alia, with one count of a breach of F
deportation order, the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 20 of
G G
the judgment:
H H
“The aggravating features were significant. This was
I
not less than the seventh occasion of coming back into I
Hong Kong in breach of the deportation order and it is
J clear that the slightly increased sentences on some of J
the previous convictions have served not a jot to deter
K the applicant. We think for the Section 43 offence, K
the appropriate (aggravated) sentence before discount
L L
for the plea was one of 4 years’ imprisonment. We will
take a point of 42 months as the point before deduction
M M
for the plea. Giving credit for the plea of guilty,
N the appropriate sentence for the Section 43 offence is N
one of 28 months’ imprisonment.”
O O
37. In the present case, the aggravating features are
P P
obvious. The defendant used a passport under a different name
from the deportation order. Between January 2015 and March 2016
Q Q
the defendant used the same passport to enter and leave Hong
R Kong as he wanted on 15 occasions. That was done on top of the R
other six occasions prior to January 2015, as shown in the TIC
S record. The defendant had two similar convictions and, worse S
still, he was using passports of two different names. The 12
T T
months’ imprisonment imposed earlier on apparently could not
serve “a jot to deter” the defendant.
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 7 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
A 38. In his mitigation letter, the defendant tendered “the A
deep and sincere apology” for breaching the deportation order,
B and he regretted for the suffering that his family has to bear B
because of his wrongdoing.
C C
39. But the defendant’s wrongdoing, as far as the present
D D
case is concerned, started from July 1999, and I have no clue as
E to whether the defendant’s wrongdoing would end in March 2016 E
once and for all.
F F
40. As the defendant may well know, the most important
G G
mitigating factor is his guilty plea, for which he is entitled
to get one-third discount in sentence, even though the evidence
H H
against him is overwhelming.
I I
41. In my view, to simplify the sentencing process, I
J would adopt a global approach to take into account of all the J
similar offences in the charge sheet, instead of considering a
K sentence for each and every count of the offence. K
L L
42. Taking all factors into account, especially the fact
that the defendant being a repeat offender, I would adopt a
M M
starting point of 3½ years (42 months) for each and every count.
N N
43. Given his plea, I sentence the defendant to an
O imprisonment term of 28 months for each count, and the sentence O
is to be served concurrently.
P P
Q Q
R R
(Stanley Chan)
S
District Judge S
T T
U U
CRT32/5.7.2016/ML 8 DCCC 450/2016/Sentence
V V
DCCC450/2016 HKSAR v. PULIDO RANNIE LAIG - LawHero