Public Prosecutor v Aam Usup

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kamala Ponnampalam
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGDC 225
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 12 August 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGDC 225
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Low (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Anand Nalachandran/Sue-Ann Li
• Year: 2009

13 July 2009

District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam:

The Charge

1. This Grounds of Decision arises from an appeal against conviction and sentence by the Accused.

2. The Accused, Aam Usup, was tried on the following charge:

DAC 00669/2008

You,
Aam Usup, Female, 46 years old
FIN No.: F8345130X
Nationality: Indonesian

are charged that you, on the 1^st day of January 2008, at or about 2.00 pm, at No. 15 Ardmore Park #06-03, Singapore, being employed in the capacity as a servant, to wit, a domestic worker, by one Susanthi Handayani Handajuwana, did commit theft of the following items:

(a) One brown-coloured safe;

(b) Two hundred and twenty-two Singapore dollars (S$222.00);

(c) One hundred and twenty-three Malaysian Ringgit (RM$123.00 equivalent to S$53.84);

(d) Five hundred and twenty Thai Baht (THB$520.00 equivalent to S$25.14);

(e) One hundred and twenty-three Malaysian Ringgit (RM$123.00 equivalent to S$53.84);

(f) Two thousand, six hundred and ninety-five Australian dollars (AU$2,695.00 equivalent to S$3,383.56);

(g) One hundred and twenty New Zealand dollars (NZ$120.00 equivalent to S$132.26);

(h) Five hundred and one United States dollars (US$501.00 equivalent to S$719.44);

(i) One dollar and fifty cents worth of Singapore Dollar coins (S$1.50);

(j) Seven United Kingdom Sterling Pounds (equivalent to S$19.82);

(k) An assortment of jewellery and watches valued at S$176,100.00 in total;

(l) Five ‘Club 21’ Reward Certificates valued at S$500.00 each, with a total value of S$2,500.00;

(m) An assortment of pouches valued at S$4,300.00 in total;

(n) An assortment of bank issued cards and cheque books and

(o) One white-coloured safe.

3. At the end of the trial, I found the Accused guilty and convicted her accordingly. I imposed a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. I shall now set out the basis for my decision.

Case for the Prosecution

4. The Prosecution had eleven witnesses. They also relied on the statements made to the police by the accomplice, Sri Sunarti. In summary, their case was that on 1^st January 2008, the Accused who was employed as a domestic worker had committed theft of two safes containing the various items listed in the charge, from the home of her employer at No. 15 Ardmore Park #06-03. She was aided in the commission of this theft by her friend Sri Sunarti.

PW1 Andrew Kumaresan

5. PW1, Andrew Kumaresan, is the police photographer. He tendered in evidence a total of 32 photographs taken on 2^nd January 2008 at No. 15 Ardmore Park. He gave evidence that he arrived at the scene after 12 noon and he started taking the first set of photos, P1 – P12, at about 12.55 pm. The remaining photos, P13 – P32, were taken after 3.00 pm on the same day. He confirmed that when he took the first set of photographs at about 12.55 pm, the brown safe and the red plastic bag were not at the seventh floor service lift lobby. Only the white safe was there at that time. He saw the brown safe at the lift lobby when he started taking the second set of photos after 3.00 pm. He also told the court that the scratch marks along the corridor on the seventh floor and the debris at the entrance of #07-02 were clearly visible.

PW2 Ibrahim Bin Abu Ngarsin

6. PW2, Ibrahim Bin Abu Ngarsin, is a security guard at the Ardmore Park Condominium. He gave evidence that on 2^nd January 2008, between 9.45 and 10.00 am, while he was on duty, the Accused approached him and told him that she had something to show him. She took him up to the seventh floor in the service lift. When he stepped out of the lift, he saw a white safe loosely wrapped in a black plastic bag on the ground next to the lift. The Accused also pointed out drag marks from the area around the safe to the door of the service staircase, down the stairs to the sixth floor and to the rear door of #06-03. There were also some chip marks on the concrete tiles of the staircase. The Accused also told him that there was another safe which was missing. Thereafter, PW2’s supervisor arrived at the scene and took over.

PW3 Sri Sunarti Mulyo Sutarno (Sri Sunarti)

7. PW3, Sri Sunarti, is an Indonesian national who was employed as a domestic worker at a neighbouring unit, #07-02, at No. 15 Ardmore Park. She was friends with the Accused and they would meet regularly to wash their employers’ cars at the basement car park.

8. In her evidence-in-chief, PW3 disclosed that she had been sentenced to a total of six months’ imprisonment for four charges of theft and had recently been released from prison. She told the court that she had stolen various sums of money from her employer while her employer was away on vacation. She said that she had sent all the money to Indonesia. When her employer found out, she was given a chance to pay the money back using her monthly salary. Her employer did not impose any deadline.

9. Sri Sunarti went on to give evidence that on 1^st January 2008, her employers were at home. At about 2.00 pm that day, she went to look for the Accused at her unit on the sixth floor. The two of them then went down to the basement car park to wash cars. A short while later, Sri Sunarti told the Accused that she had forgotten to bring along a cloth and went back upstairs. The Accused remained in the car park washing the car. Sri Sunarti went directly to the Accused’s unit on the sixth floor. She entered the Accused’s employers’ bedroom, opened the cupboard and saw two safes there. She took the two safes and brought them up to her unit on the seventh floor, one at a time. She used the rear staircase to bring them up and placed them near her bathroom in her unit. It took her about 15 to 20 minutes to bring both safes up. Sri Sunarti said that she was confused and did not know how to pay back her employer. That is why she stole the two safes.

10. Sri Sunarti’s evidence was that after taking the safes up to her unit, she returned to the car park to continue washing the car. At about 2.30 pm, the Accused and she returned to their respective units. Sri Sunarti prepared lunch. After that, she used a hammer and a long instrument made of iron to hit the safe. She hit the white safe first for about half an hour. The top portion of the safe broke and she looked inside. There was nothing inside. She left it aside and prepared dinner. Later that night at about 10.00 pm, she placed the white safe at the service lift lobby on her floor.

11. On 2^nd January at about six in the morning, Sri Sunarti tried to break open the brown safe in the same way. Her employers were home but were not up yet. It was her evidence that her room and her employer’s room were quite far apart. She hit the safe several times until the door gave way. Inside, there was money, jewellery and certificates. She put the jewellery in a plastic bag and placed it on top of the shelf in the storeroom. The money she kept in a brown bag and put it in a red basket in the kitchen.

12. At about 10.00 am the same morning, the police came. They looked around and asked Sri Sunarti if she knew about the white safe. She replied that she did not. When the police left, Sri Sunarti placed the brown safe at the seventh floor service lift lobby as well. A short while later, the police returned and asked about the contents of the two safes. Sri Sunarti testified that she did not tell them any thing. Nevertheless, they brought her to the police station right away. There she told the police how she had stolen the safes. The police questioned her about how she was able to carry the safes by herself and whether anyone had assisted her. Sri Sunarti’s evidence was that she was afraid and confused. So she told the police that she did it with another person. When the police asked if the Accused was involved, she answered “yes”.

Cross-examination of PW3 by Prosecution

13. At this juncture, the Prosecution applied to cross-examine Sri Sunarti under Section 156 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 97. Based on her evidence-in-chief, they wanted to treat her as a hostile witness. I allowed the application and the DPP proceeded to cross-examine her.

14. In cross-examination, Sri Sunarti gave evidence that the idea to steal the safes came to her just like that. She knew that the rear door to the Accused’s unit was not locked. So she opened the door and walked straight into the master bedroom. She carried the safes out of the cupboard in the master bedroom, out of the Accused’s unit, up the staircase and back to her unit. She carried the two safes, first the white safe and then the brown safe, back to her unit in about 15 to 20 minutes. She did not search the master bedroom or any of the other parts of the house for valuables. Sri Sunarti told the court that she carried the two safes all by herself while the Accused was downstairs washing the car.

15. The Prosecution asked Sri Sunarti if she was prepared to demonstrate in court how she carried the two safes. Sri Sunarti replied that she was willing to do the demonstration. I directed that her handcuffs be removed and she be allowed to ambulate her arms for a while. After about 10 minutes, Sri Sunarti proceeded to demonstrate how she carried the white safe.

16. The white safe was placed on a table and Sri Sunarti moved forward to lift the safe from the table. On her first attempt, even as she tried to slide the safe off the table, the table tilted forward with the safe on it. On her second attempt, Sri Sunarti managed to lift the safe a few inches before the Investigation Officer had to step in to help her support the safe.

17. After a few minutes, Sri Sunarti tried to lift the brown safe. She was once again asked if she wished to demonstrate lifting the brown safe and she replied yes. When Sri Sunarti attempted to lift the brown safe, she struggled for almost a minute to lift it off the ground but was unable to. She was only able to shift it and place her fingers beneath the brown safe. I then directed her to stop. Sri Sunarti was cross-examined further and it was put to her that she could not have carried the...