Hon Chi Wan Colman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 August 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 190
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 7 of 2002
• Date: 26 August 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Plaintiff Counsel: Abdul Rashid Gani and PE Ashokan (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 190
• Defendant Counsel: Ravneet Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal breach of trust,Admissibility of evidence,Witnesses,Whether sole dominion necessary,Accomplice evidence,s 116 illustration (b) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed),Court to treat such evidence with caution,Degree of control over property required to prove entrustment of dominion,Offences,Whether element of entrustment of dominion proved,Whether court must presume such evidence unworthy of credit,Essence of offence,ss 109 & 408 Penal Code (Cap 224),Inconsistencies in testimony,Whether accomplice's evidence reliable in circumstances,Whether court can accept part of testimony and reject others,Criminal Law,Evidence,Entrustment of dominion over property

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was an appeal against the decision of district judge Hoo Sheau Peng where she convicted the appellant on two counts of abetment by conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, an offence punishable under s 408 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ and ten months’ imprisonment respectively on the two charges, which were to run concurrently. The appellant appealed against his conviction. I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

The charges

2 The amended charges against the appellant read as follows:

First Charge

DAC 10260/2001

You, Hon Chi Wan, Colman, Male/37 years, NRIC No: S2674125D, are charged that you, sometime in the month of May 2000, in Singapore, being a servant, namely the Service Logistics Manager, of Philips Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd ("the Company"), did engage with one Donald Puah Boon Leng, the Company’s Service Delivery Manager, in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, that is to commit criminal breach of trust of the items specified in Annex A, dominion over which had been entrusted to you in your capacity as a servant, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on the 17^th day of May 2000, whereby the said Donald Puah Boon Leng sold the items specified in Annex B to one Chia Kin Boon Anthony, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code Cap 224.

Second Charge

DAC 10261/2001

You, Hon Chi Wan, Colman, Male/37 years, NRIC No: S2674125D, are charged that you, sometime in the month of May 2000, in Singapore, being a servant, namely the Service Logistics Manager, of Philips Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd ("the Company"), did engage with one Donald Puah Boon Leng, the Company’s Service Delivery Manager, in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, that is to commit criminal breach of trust of the items specified in Annex A, dominion over which had been entrusted to you in your capacity as a servant, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on the 17^th day of May 2000, whereby the said Donald Puah Boon Leng sold the items specified in Annex B to one "Johan", which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code Cap 224.

3 Annex A, which is common to both charges, is as follows:

Annex A

S/No	Description	Quantity
1	Philips Genie (handsets only)	200 sets
2	Philips Xenium 939 standard set (w transceiver, one battery and one traveller charger)	200 sets of each
3	Philips Xenium 929 standard set (w transceiver, one battery and one traveller charger)	200 sets of each
4	Xenium Batt, 800 mah	180 sets
5	Xenium 1200 Batt Vibra	200 sets
6	Savvy Charger (UK)	200 sets
7	Savvy Charger (US)	100 sets
8	Savvy Battery 1200mah	62 sets
9	Savvy Battery Slim AAA700 C12	8 sets
10	Savvy User Manual (English)	69 books
11	Savvy C12 (Transceivers only)	200 sets

4 Items in Row 1 to 5 are contained in Annex B to the first charge as goods sold to Anthony. The remaining items, listed in rows 6-11 are contained in Annex B to the second charge as goods sold to "Johan".

Background facts

5 The brief background facts are that the appellant is a Singaporean PR, originally from Hong Kong. He was employed by Philips Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd ("the Company") in 1998 as the Regional Service Logistics Manager of Philips Consumer Communications Service ("PCC"). In March 2000, the appellant was additionally appointed as Accessories Sales and Marketing Manager, PCC. Donald Puah Boon Leng ("Donald"), aged 36, was the Service Delivery Manager of PCC , responsible for overseeing field data operations. He and the appellant came into frequent contact during the course of work.

6 The appellant was responsible for logistic management of service in the Asia Pacific region. This included the requisitioning of inventories for either stock support to service centres in the region or quality assurance testing.

7 The procedure for drawing inventories is that PCC would need to requisition it from JSI Shipping Pte Ltd ("JSI"), a third party logistics provider for the Company. Any PCC staff could initiate the requisition from JSI by giving them a requisition form. When JSI received a requisition form, it would send or fax a Picking List to the requestor for confirmation. Upon return of a signed Picking List by the requestor, JSI would then arrange delivery of the goods. A PCC staff who received the goods had to acknowledge receipt on a delivery order ("DO") provided by the JSI’s forwarder. PCC employees in the service logistics department reported to the appellant and each of them could requisition for goods from JSI.

8 All the stocks in JSI’s warehouse are goods belonging to the Company, which were under the eventual management responsibility of the appellant, within the scope of his job as Regional Service Logistics Manager. Equally, goods moved from JSI to PCC would also come under the management responsibility of the appellant, since they came under the management control of the appellant’s department. Besides the appellant, another person responsible for the goods was one MC Wong ("Wong"), to whom he reported and who had the overall responsibility for service in the Asia Pacific region.

Prosecution’s version

9 I now move to the transactions which are the subject matter of the charges faced by the appellant. Sometime between 1 to 6 May 2000, the appellant had approached Donald in the office and asked him to find buyers for some transceivers and handphone accessories. The appellant said that the goods were ready in JSI and that they were not in the inventory records. Donald and the appellant agreed to split the proceeds of the sale equally.

10 From 7 to 13 May 2000, Donald agreed with two persons – Anthony Chia Kin Boon ("Anthony"), who had met him while working with Motorola, and ‘Johan’, an Indonesian businessman who had met Donald when Donald went there for a business trip, to sell them the items as laid out in Annex B.

11 The price and quantities were agreed after Donald had consulted with the appellant. Anthony agreed to pay $173,500 and ‘Johan’ agreed to pay $26,500.

12 Thereafter, Donald was instructed by the appellant to liase with one Agnes Yup Mei Li ("Agnes"), an employee in PCC who worked under the appellant, regarding the transfer of the needed quantities of items to PCC from JSI. Donald also got one Teo Eng Chye ("Teo"), who was employed as an engineering assistant in PCC and reported to Donald, to count and pack the items into smaller cartons and prepare corresponding delivery orders.

13 Between 8 May to 17 May 2000, Agnes requisitioned large quantities of transceivers and accessories from JSI on the instructions of the appellant. An email dated 8 May 2000 was sent to JSI requesting for 20 transceivers each of Genie, Xenium 15, Xenium 16 and Savvy to be delivered daily from 8 May to 12 May 2000, making a total of 80 transceivers in all. A copy of this mail was sent to the appellant. In addition, she also requested another 100 each of the transceivers listed above, making a total of 400 transceivers in all.

14 Similarly, Agnes sent another email dated 12 May 2000 requesting 100 transceivers each of Genie, Xenium 15, Xenium 16 and Savvy. Added to her earlier requests, that made 800 transceivers in all requested from JSI. All the transceivers were delivered by 12 May 2000.

15 Agnes also requested for accessories such as chargers, batteries and user manuals on four separate occasions – 11, 12, 15 and 17 May 2000 via emails. As before, four picking lists were signed by her, and she acknowledged receipt of the items by signing the delivery orders, save for the last delivery order dated 16 May 2000 which was signed by one Fu Yock Buay@Fu XueMei ("Charmaine") on her behalf. Not all accessories ordered were delivered.

16 When the requested transceivers and accessories arrived, Agnes informed the appellant and was told by him to hand them over to Donald, who in turn requested that she pass them to Teo for unpacking.

17 On 17 May 2000, Donald contacted Anthony and asked him to proceed to the Company to collect the items. A Delivery Order dated 17 May 2000 was prepared by Teo. The DO was to allow Anthony to be able to transport the goods out of the Company. The goods taken were the property of the Company.

18 The items were taken out by Anthony’s assistant. That evening, Donald met Anthony to sort out the discrepancies between what Anthony had brought out and what he had ordered. Donald testified that he had earlier removed quantities of some of the ordered items from the Company, thus he was able to make up the shortfalls. After settling matters with Anthony, Donald then delivered the items ordered by "Johan" to a member of his staff that same night.

19 Donald collected the payment for the goods from ‘Johan’ and Anthony on 21 May 2000 and 22 May 2000 respectively. Both paid him in cash. After receiving payment from ‘Johan’, Donald put $10,000 into an envelope, being the appellant’s share of the money, on the same night.

20 On 23 May 2000, Donald passed the envelope to the appellant at about 8.30 am. He noticed the appellant putting the envelope into his drawer. Later that day, the appellant and Donald were called up for internal investigations unrelated to the transactions. The appellant was called up in the morning and did not return to his office until 5 – 6 pm. He packed his things and was then escorted out of the office. Donald himself was also called up soon after on the same day and both he and the appellant were subsequently suspended from their duties.

21 On 24 May 2000, before he...