DCCC373/2018 HKSAR v. ROSIMO RACHEL BAYAO - LawHero
DCCC373/2018
HKSAR v. ROSIMO RACHEL BAYAO
區域法院（刑事）HH Judge Yiu4/9/2018[2018] HKDC 1227
DCCC373/2018
A A
DCCC 373/2018
[2018] HKDC 1227
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 373 OF 2018
D D
----------------------
E E
HKSAR
F F
v
G ROSIMO Rachel Bayao G
H ---------------------- H
I Before: HH Judge Yiu I
Date: 5 September 2018 at 3.32 pm
Present: Mr King Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
J J
Ms Cherry Hui, instructed by Messrs C. Yu & Co, assigned by DLA,
for the defendant
K K
Offence: (1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
(2) Breach of condition of stay (違反逗留條件)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O O
1. Defendant faced 2 charges including burglary and breach of condition
P P
of stay, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and
Q
section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 and by virtue of Regulation 2 of Q
the Immigration Regulations, Cap 115A.
R R
2. The facts were as follows, Mr Bagui, PW1, and the defendant are the
S S
only employees of the office of Sante Barley (Hong Kong) Limited at Room 1003,
T 10th Floor, Lansing House, Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong office. The T
defendant has only been given permission to work as a foreign domestic helper as
U U
a condition of her stay in Hong Kong between May 2017 and 6 February 2018.
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 1 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant however took up employment as an administrative staff of the
B above office in this period and in breach of the said condition of stay. B
C C
3. In her video-recorded interview on 6 February 2018, the defendant
D stated under caution that she had worked at this office as an administrative staff D
since May 2017, doing reports for sales, inventory counting and cashier customer
E E
service.
F F
4. At around 1900 hours on 7 February 2018, PW1 locked the office
G G
main door and the storeroom before leaving the office. He also ensured that the
H cash box with cash of HK$180,000 inside was locked and that the box’s key was H
placed inside the drawer near it.
I I
J 5. On the following morning, on 3 February 2018, PW1 was informed J
by the defendant that the office was broken into. When he arrived, he found the
K K
cash box had its key inserted in the key hole and the cash of $180,000 therein,
L belonging to the Sante Barley (Hong Kong) Limited was missing. L
M M
6. CCTV footage from Lansing House captured the defendant fully
N covered in black clothes and a mask, entering and leaving Lansing House at 0747 N
and 0756 hours respectively on 3 February 2018.
O O
P 7. On 6 February 2018, police arrested the defendant and the defendant P
admitted to stealing cash of 180,000 from the office because she needed money.
Q Q
Cash totalling $15,990 comprising of 28 of Hong Kong 500 notes and also other
R notes were recovered from the defendant’s place of residence at Room E, 9th R
Floor, Hong Chiang Building, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.
S S
T 8. In her video-recorded interview on 6 February 2018, the defendant T
further admitted that only PW1 and herself had the keys to the office. She woke
U U
up early on 3 February 2018 to meet up with a Filipino woman called Jessica in
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 2 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
Central. And Jessica’s Filipino Husband, David also turned up. Jessica told her
B to walk up to the office by stairs because the lifts have CCTV. She saw Jessica B
by the door of the office and later Jessica told her that the situation was under
C C
control, money was taken from the office. The clothes defendant wore that day
D was given to her by Jessica. Their plan was for them to go into the office in D
January but she could not do it then. Jessica and the defendant knew in January
E E
and the defendant would be depositing about $180,000 for the company for its
F sales in December 2017. F
G G
8. Jessica and David stole that sum of money from the office. It was a
H plan and the defendant knew that they were going to take the money. She had H
told them where all the keys in the office were and she was told by them that they
I I
would help repay her debt, being a loan taken out with Public Finance. They have
J repaid $6,000 for the defendant’s debt and had given the defendant $10,000 on 4 J
February 2018 through a man and they had promised to fully repay the defendant’s
K K
debt. Another $10,000 she received from Jessica was in her boarding house in
L Wan Chai. The cash of $10,000 of that $15,990 found in her place of residence L
was the cash that Jessica had passed her through an unknown man.
M M
N 10. The defendant now admits, together with other persons unknown, N
having entered the office as trespassers and stole cash of $180,000.
O O
P 11. The defendant, aged 35, clear record, a national of Philippines. P
married with 2 children of 6 and 12. Ms Hui submits that the defendant came to
Q Q
Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper but her employer was not nice and the
R defendant wanted to earn more money to repay loan and that eventually the R
defendant found a job to work part-time as an administrative staff. She had been
S S
told that working visa would have been applied for her. And while staying in a
T boarding house, she met Jessica and David whom said they would help her to T
repay the loan and finally they had repaid 6,000 for her and also gave her 10,000
U U
cash.
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 3 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
B 12. The defendant now regrets so much for what she had done and she B
had made an early admission and helped police to find Jessica and David by phone
C C
but in vain. Ms Hui further said that the defendant had been in full cooperation
D with police and do ask for a lenient sentence. D
E E
13. Burglary is a serious offense. The Court of Appeal in quite some
F cases already stated that concerning non-domestic premises, the starting point F
should be 2½ years’ imprisonment. But the more serious aspect of the present
G G
case was clearly that the defendant had not only in breach of the trust placed by her
H employer and that altogether, three persons were involved, where a higher starting H
point may be adopted.
I I
J 14. However, taking into account the early admission by the defendant J
and that quite some cash had already been recovered. After consideration, I still
K K
adopt 2½ years’ imprisonment as a starting point and that be reduced to 20 months
L upon her guilty plea. And as to the 2nd charge, the breach was continuous for a L
period of about 9 months. The fact was serious. I consider it appropriate to
M M
impose 3 months’ imprisonment and that be reduced to 2 months upon her guilty
N plea. N
O O
15. And lastly on totality, I consider that the overall sentence of 2 charges
P should be 21 months’ imprisonment and that shall be as follows: P
1st charge: 20 months’ imprisonment;
Q Q
2nd charge: 2 months’ imprisonment, from which 1 month be made consecutive to
R the 1st charge. R
S S
17. So altogether, defendant is sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for
T both charges. T
(Yiu)
U U
District Judge
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 4 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC 373/2018
[2018] HKDC 1227
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 373 OF 2018
D D
----------------------
E E
HKSAR
F F
v
G ROSIMO Rachel Bayao G
H ---------------------- H
I Before: HH Judge Yiu I
Date: 5 September 2018 at 3.32 pm
Present: Mr King Chan, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
J J
Ms Cherry Hui, instructed by Messrs C. Yu & Co, assigned by DLA,
for the defendant
K K
Offence: (1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
(2) Breach of condition of stay (違反逗留條件)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O O
1. Defendant faced 2 charges including burglary and breach of condition
P P
of stay, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and
Q
section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 and by virtue of Regulation 2 of Q
the Immigration Regulations, Cap 115A.
R R
2. The facts were as follows, Mr Bagui, PW1, and the defendant are the
S S
only employees of the office of Sante Barley (Hong Kong) Limited at Room 1003,
T 10th Floor, Lansing House, Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong office. The T
defendant has only been given permission to work as a foreign domestic helper as
U U
a condition of her stay in Hong Kong between May 2017 and 6 February 2018.
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 1 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant however took up employment as an administrative staff of the
B above office in this period and in breach of the said condition of stay. B
C C
3. In her video-recorded interview on 6 February 2018, the defendant
D stated under caution that she had worked at this office as an administrative staff D
since May 2017, doing reports for sales, inventory counting and cashier customer
E E
service.
F F
4. At around 1900 hours on 7 February 2018, PW1 locked the office
G G
main door and the storeroom before leaving the office. He also ensured that the
H cash box with cash of HK$180,000 inside was locked and that the box’s key was H
placed inside the drawer near it.
I I
J 5. On the following morning, on 3 February 2018, PW1 was informed J
by the defendant that the office was broken into. When he arrived, he found the
K K
cash box had its key inserted in the key hole and the cash of $180,000 therein,
L belonging to the Sante Barley (Hong Kong) Limited was missing. L
M M
6. CCTV footage from Lansing House captured the defendant fully
N covered in black clothes and a mask, entering and leaving Lansing House at 0747 N
and 0756 hours respectively on 3 February 2018.
O O
P 7. On 6 February 2018, police arrested the defendant and the defendant P
admitted to stealing cash of 180,000 from the office because she needed money.
Q Q
Cash totalling $15,990 comprising of 28 of Hong Kong 500 notes and also other
R notes were recovered from the defendant’s place of residence at Room E, 9th R
Floor, Hong Chiang Building, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.
S S
T 8. In her video-recorded interview on 6 February 2018, the defendant T
further admitted that only PW1 and herself had the keys to the office. She woke
U U
up early on 3 February 2018 to meet up with a Filipino woman called Jessica in
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 2 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
Central. And Jessica’s Filipino Husband, David also turned up. Jessica told her
B to walk up to the office by stairs because the lifts have CCTV. She saw Jessica B
by the door of the office and later Jessica told her that the situation was under
C C
control, money was taken from the office. The clothes defendant wore that day
D was given to her by Jessica. Their plan was for them to go into the office in D
January but she could not do it then. Jessica and the defendant knew in January
E E
and the defendant would be depositing about $180,000 for the company for its
F sales in December 2017. F
G G
8. Jessica and David stole that sum of money from the office. It was a
H plan and the defendant knew that they were going to take the money. She had H
told them where all the keys in the office were and she was told by them that they
I I
would help repay her debt, being a loan taken out with Public Finance. They have
J repaid $6,000 for the defendant’s debt and had given the defendant $10,000 on 4 J
February 2018 through a man and they had promised to fully repay the defendant’s
K K
debt. Another $10,000 she received from Jessica was in her boarding house in
L Wan Chai. The cash of $10,000 of that $15,990 found in her place of residence L
was the cash that Jessica had passed her through an unknown man.
M M
N 10. The defendant now admits, together with other persons unknown, N
having entered the office as trespassers and stole cash of $180,000.
O O
P 11. The defendant, aged 35, clear record, a national of Philippines. P
married with 2 children of 6 and 12. Ms Hui submits that the defendant came to
Q Q
Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper but her employer was not nice and the
R defendant wanted to earn more money to repay loan and that eventually the R
defendant found a job to work part-time as an administrative staff. She had been
S S
told that working visa would have been applied for her. And while staying in a
T boarding house, she met Jessica and David whom said they would help her to T
repay the loan and finally they had repaid 6,000 for her and also gave her 10,000
U U
cash.
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 3 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V
A A
B 12. The defendant now regrets so much for what she had done and she B
had made an early admission and helped police to find Jessica and David by phone
C C
but in vain. Ms Hui further said that the defendant had been in full cooperation
D with police and do ask for a lenient sentence. D
E E
13. Burglary is a serious offense. The Court of Appeal in quite some
F cases already stated that concerning non-domestic premises, the starting point F
should be 2½ years’ imprisonment. But the more serious aspect of the present
G G
case was clearly that the defendant had not only in breach of the trust placed by her
H employer and that altogether, three persons were involved, where a higher starting H
point may be adopted.
I I
J 14. However, taking into account the early admission by the defendant J
and that quite some cash had already been recovered. After consideration, I still
K K
adopt 2½ years’ imprisonment as a starting point and that be reduced to 20 months
L upon her guilty plea. And as to the 2nd charge, the breach was continuous for a L
period of about 9 months. The fact was serious. I consider it appropriate to
M M
impose 3 months’ imprisonment and that be reduced to 2 months upon her guilty
N plea. N
O O
15. And lastly on totality, I consider that the overall sentence of 2 charges
P should be 21 months’ imprisonment and that shall be as follows: P
1st charge: 20 months’ imprisonment;
Q Q
2nd charge: 2 months’ imprisonment, from which 1 month be made consecutive to
R the 1st charge. R
S S
17. So altogether, defendant is sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for
T both charges. T
(Yiu)
U U
District Judge
CRT28/5.9.2018/JC/tw 4 DCCC 373/2018/Sentence
V V