Public Prosecutor v Ng Aik Beng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan
• Judgment Date: 29 February 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGDC 50
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 May 2008
• Year: 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: APP Kalai
• Defendant Counsel: Kelvin Lim
• Citation: [2008] SGDC 50

29 February 08

District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan

BACKGROUND

The accused claims trial to one charge of housebreaking and theft by night, an offence under s.457 read with s.34 of the Penal Code Cap 224. The offence was committed on 25 Apr 07 at about 4.50 am at No. 87 Meyer Road, Singapore. The accused committed the offence together with two co-accused namely Aung Niang and Thant Zin.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

2. The prosecution relies on the testimony of three witnesses, namely the two co-accused Aung Niang (PW1) and Thant Zin (PW3) and an ex-worker of the accused, Tan Liang Meng (PW2).

Evidence of Aung Niang (PW1)

3. Aung Niang (PW1) testified that he had entered Singapore illegally. He had worked in many jobs for many employers until he was introduced to the accused by a friend. According to Aung Niang, the accused was known to him as Ah Ming. According to Aung Niang, he was of the impression that the accused was a very wealthy man whom he has seen driving several different cars. Sometime on the 16 Apr 07, the accused called him up and arranged to meet him. The meeting took place at the MacDonald’s restaurant at Kallang. During the meeting, the accused informed Aung Niang that he was in financial difficulty and that he needed a lot of money to pay his debts. He disclosed to Aung Niang his plan to break into his former boss’s house and steal valuables. He promised Aung Niang that his share in the enterprise would be around $10,000/-. Aung Niang agreed to take part in this crime. The accused also told Aung Niang to recruit another person to assist them. Aung Niang managed to convince his friend, Aung, to join in. Prior to the commission of the break-in, the three of them conducted two recce missions to the house. According to Aung Niang, the house was a big bungalow Meyer Road. It was later revealed that the bungalow was at No. 87 Meyer Road.

4. In furtherance of the plan, the accused gave Aung Niang $50/- to purchase masks, gloves and a haversack for use during the break-in. Subsequently, on the night of 24 Apr 07, Aung Niang received a call from the accused who informed him that they would be executing the plan that night. However, Aung suddenly developed cold feet and decided to back out. On learning this, the accused told Aung Niang to recruit a replacement. Aung Niang managed to convince Thant Zin to join them. The accused then picked them up in his car and they drove to the target house. However, they saw an old car parked in the compound of the house. As such, they returned to MacDonald’s Kallang and spent their time there having their meals until 3.30 am the next day when they proceeded to the house again. They entered the compound of the house through a hole in the fencing that they had made during one of their recce missions. Inside the house, they ransacked the cupboards and they took the following items namely ladies handbags, 10 bottles of liquor and other items.

5. Subsequently, Aung Niang and Thant Zin left the house and proceeded towards the ECP Expressway which was located behind the house. Aung Niang hid the bag containing the stolen items in some bushes located in the centre median of the Expressway. Aung Niang then received a call from the accused via his handphone. The accused informed Aung Niang that he was still inside the house. Aung Niang re-entered the house to get the accused while Thant Zin waited outside. Aung Niang could not find the accused. Instead he was caught by the occupants in the house and was beaten up until he was rendered unconscious. When he came to, he was in the hospital.

6. Aung Niang confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to the charge under s.457 read with s.34 Penal Code Cap 224 and he was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment which he is currently serving. Aung Niang confirmed that the person whom he called Ah Ming is the accused.

Evidence of Tan Lian Meng (PW2)

7. Tan was a former worker of the accused. He testified that the accused had called him up and arrange to meet him at the KFC at Kallang. This was sometime in Apr 07. He said that the accused was with two male foreigners. One was Aung Niang and the other was someone he did not know. During the meeting, the accused told Tan about his financial difficulty and his plan to commit house-breaking. He wanted Tan to join in his plan as the driver of the getaway car. Tan said that he turned down the accused’s offer because he had just been released from prison then and he had wanted to start his life afresh. However, the accused managed to persuade him to drive the accused and his two companions to Meyer Road to recce the house. Tan drove them to a park near Meyer Road where the three alighted and walked away. Tan waited in his car until the accused contacted him on his handphone and asked Tan to pick them up. After Tan had picked them up, they returned to KFC Kallang where the accused had parked his car earlier.

Evidence of Thant Zin (PW3)

8. Thant Zin agreed to join in the plan to commit house breaking when he was approached by Aung Niang on the night of 24 Apr 07. However, he testified that Aung Niang had only told him that his boss wanted someone to do a job carrying things and that he would be paid between $4000/- to $10,000/-. He was picked up by Aung Niang and his boss in his boss’s Toyota. They then proceeded to the house at Meyer Road where Aung Niang’s boss made one round and thereafter they went to the MacDonald’s at Kallang for a meal. They stayed there until about 3.30 am when they proceeded to Meyer Road again. The accused and Aung Niang entered the house via a hole in a fence while Thant Zin stood watch outside. After about an hour, the accused came out and instructed Thant Zin to enter the house. Inside, Thant Zin and Aung Niang used newspapers to cover up the cameras installed all around the house. The three of them also ransacked the house. They took some ladies handbags, 10 bottles of liquor, a heart rate monitor and some other items. After a while, Thant Zin and Aung Niang decided to leave the house with the loot. Aung Niang hid the items in some bushes at the centre median of the ECP Expressway which was located behind the house. After that, Aung Niang returned to the house to get the accused who was still inside. Thant Zin waited outside the compound. A short while later, Thant Zin received a call from the accused who informed him that the accused was in the car. He wanted them to go to the car. Thant Zin entered the house to look for Aung Niang but to no avail. He became uneasy and he left the house and walked to the car. The accused then drove him back to Jurong West.

9. Thant Zin confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of housebreaking and theft by night under s.457 read with s.34 Cap 224 and was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. He is presently serving the sentence.

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

10. At the close of the case for the prosecution, I was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. As such, I called upon the accused to enter his defence. I administered the standard allocution to him. He acknowledged that he understood the allocution. After a short discussion with his counsel, he elected to remain silent.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

11. Counsel submitted that the accused’s defence was always that he was not in any way involved in the so-called plan to break into the Meyer Road house. In other words, he was never there and therefore, by implication, the prosecution witnesses were either all lying or they were mistaken as to the identity of the person they referred to as Ah Ming, the mastermind of the whole enterprise.

12. Having heard the testimonies of the three material witnesses for the prosecution (PW1, PW2 and PW3), I have no hesitation in finding that they were telling the truth and were not fabricating evidence against the accused. Neither were they mistaken when they identified the accused as the person whom they referred to as Ah Ming.

13. In assessing the evidence of Aung Niang and Thant Zin, I am aware that their testimonies fall within the category of...