Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 August 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 183
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 39 of 1996
• Date: 26 August 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Anamah Tan (Ann Tan & Associates) and Singa Retnam (Singa Retnam Kurup & Associates)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 183
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Lim (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,s 354 Penal Code (Cap 224),Corroboration,Using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty,Whether prima facie case could not be answered by bare denial,Whether doubts real and reasonable or merely fanciful,Offences,Whether accused's evidence could be discounted merely because it was a bare denial,Bare denial,Whether parent could corroborate child's evidence,Relatively minor acts of molest,Burden of proof,Sentencing,Principles,Victim's evidence uncorroborated,Evidence,Whether bare denial carried connotation that it could not be true,Witnesses,Criminal Law,Whether fine more appropriate,Parent,Criminal force and assault

The appellant was convicted by the magistrate on seven counts of using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant (PW1) contrary to s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). After hearing both learned counsel and the deputy public prosecutor, I dismissed his appeal against conviction, but I reduced the sentence in respect of five of the charges. I now give my reasons.

The charges

Four of the charges against the appellant alleged that he caressed PW1`s thigh. These incidents happened on 29 March, 31 March, 7 April and 12 April. A fifth charge alleged that the appellant caressed PW1`s thigh and squeezed her on the back on 5 April 1995. The sixth charge alleged that the appellant caressed PW1`s thigh and touched her left breast on 19 April 1995. The last charge alleged that he caressed her thigh, touched her breasts and kissed her on the cheeks and lips on 21 April 1995. All the incidents took place between 8.30am and 10.30am.

Background facts

PW1 was 13 years old at the time of the alleged offences. She is an Indonesian student studying in Singapore. PW1 came to Singapore in August 1989. The appellant`s wife (Mrs Teo) was the principal of PW1`s primary school. Since September 1993, PW1 boarded with the appellant`s sister (Madam Teo). The appellant became PW1`s guarantor. In March 1995, he gave her tuition. Until the incidents, PW1`s family and the Teo family were on good terms.

PW1 and PW6 were friends. PW6 is a Taiwanese student who came to Singapore in 1993. This was upon the recommendation of PW1`s father, PW3. PW3 was a friend of PW6`s mother. PW1 and PW6 went to the same primary school and were roommates at Madam Teo`s flat. The appellant also gave PW6 tuition.

The first tuition lesson the appellant gave PW1 was on 22 March 1995. The lessons lasted from 8.30am till 10.30am, on Wednesdays and Fridays. They were held in the dining room of the appellant`s flat, which was a Housing and Development Board maisonette. During the lessons, the appellant always sat facing the stairs, which led upstairs. PW1 sat with her back to the stairs. The appellant had a dog, a Pomeranian, which was always in the room.

The prosecution`s evidence

PW1

PW1 testified that the first incident took place during the third lesson, on 29 March 1995. The appellant placed his right hand on her thigh. He moved it up and down for about one minute. PW1 did not say anything even though she felt uneasy. She did not know that the appellant intended to outrage her modesty. After the incident, they continued with the lesson.

On 31 March, the appellant did the same thing. On 5 April, the appellant caressed PW1`s thigh. He also asked her whether she was tired. She replied that she was not. He pressed his hands against her back and rubbed her shoulders. On 7 and 12 April, the appellant stroked PW1`s thigh again. PW1 did not protest on any of the occasions.

On 19 April, PW1 went to the appellant`s home for tuition wearing a tee-shirt with a logo over her left breast. The appellant caressed her thigh on that occasion again. On the pretext of examining the logo, he pressed his hands against her left breast. PW1 was shocked and frightened. However, she did not raise any objection as there was nobody within sight. According to her, this was the first time she realised that the appellant had the intention to outrage her modesty. On that day, she did not tell anyone about the incident as she thought that the appellant would not repeat what he did. Nevertheless, PW1 told Madam Teo that she did not wish to go for tuition. Mdm Teo insisted that she had to go.

On 21 April, the appellant caressed PW1`s thigh and squeezed her left breast. He then kissed her on the left cheek and tried to make her turn her face to the other side so that he could kiss her on the right cheek. PW1 resisted. The appellant turned PW1`s head towards him and kissed her on the lips. After that, he squeezed her right breast.

The appellant told PW1, `Don`t tell anybody. Don`t tell Daddy and don`t tell Aunty (Mdm Teo).` He said that otherwise, they would be angry with him. PW1 kept still because she was afraid of the Pomeranian underneath the appellant`s chair. When the appellant squeezed her right breast, she shook off his hands. She told him that she had to go to the bank to get some money. The appellant offered to send her there. She refused and rushed out of the flat.

PW1 left the appellant`s flat crying. She went to the Post Office Savings Bank at the Tampines Bus Interchange and withdrew $100. She bought a $50 phone card. She then went to the flat of her friend, Chew, which was nearby. At the void deck, she telephoned Chew from the public phone to let him know that she was going up to his flat.

After this, she called home to Indonesia. PW3 picked up the phone. She asked to speak to her mother (PW7). PW1 told PW7 what happened. PW7 started crying. PW3 took over the call. He told PW1 that he would take a flight to Singapore that very night. After calling home, PW1 went up to Chew`s flat. She cried and told him that she had been molested by her tuition teacher.

After confiding in Chew, she returned to Madam Teo`s house. The appellant`s shoes were not outside and she thought that he was not inside. She called PW3 to let him know that she had arrived home safely. Madam Teo approached her and asked her to give the appellant a chance. Madam Teo said that the accused wanted to speak to her. PW1 locked herself in her room upon hearing this. The appellant stood outside the room, asking for forgiveness. She only came out after Madam Teo said that the appellant had left. On that day, her friends, Chew, Eunice and Rickson accompanied her to school.

PW6 came looking for her at about 5pm. PW6 had a letter written by the appellant. PW6 said that the appellant had begged her to see PW1. PW6 asked her what happened. PW1 did not say. PW1 obtained permission to leave school early. The two of them went for a meal. After the meal, they returned to PW1`s school. PW1 was concerned that PW3 would look for her there. They waited till 7pm. PW6 went back to Madam Teo`s flat and collected a change of clothes. Both of them went to People`s Park Centre to rent a room. PW1 asked PW6 to call Madam Teo to let PW3 know that they were at People`s Park. PW3 came at 9.30pm.

Following this, there were two meetings with the appellant`s family at People`s Park. PW1 was confused about the date. By this time, PW6`s mother had arrived from Taiwan. The appellant did not turn up at the first meeting, which was in the afternoon. The second meeting in the evening was therefore arranged.

During the second meeting, PW3 asked the appellant to say what he had done to molest PW1 and to admit the truth. The appellant denied the allegations. Subsequently, the appellant and Mrs Teo left in a hurry.

PW3 took PW1 to the police station to lodge a report. PW1 only mentioned about the incident on 21 April in her first information report. This was because this incident was the most recent. It remained freshest in her mind. When she was questioned by the police, she told them about the other incidents.

PW3

PW3 said that PW1 called home on 21 April 1995. PW1 was crying. He asked what had happened, but PW1 wanted to speak to her mother. PW3 asked his wife to take the call. After hearing PW1, PW7 started crying as well. From what PW7 asked PW1, PW3 surmised that PW1 had been molested. PW7 handed the phone to him. He told PW1 to take a taxi home and that he would fly to Singapore that day.

PW3 called Madam Teo. He asked her why the appellant had molested PW1 during tuition. PW3 told Madam Teo that the appellant had kissed PW1, embraced her, caressed her thigh and touched her breasts. He told her that she had to be responsible and asked her to look for PW1. He made several more calls to Madam Teo to find out if PW1 had arrived home safely.

PW3 received a call from the appellant. The appellant said that there was no need for PW1 to go to Singapore as nothing serious happened. The appellant apologised. PW3 hung up the phone. Later, PW1 called to say that she had reached home. He assured her that he would go to Singapore. After this, he made two calls to Taiwan to PW6`s mother. However, he could not reach her.

PW3 arrived in Singapore at about 7pm. He went to PW1`s school but did not find her. He went to Madam Teo`s flat and was told that PW1 was waiting for him at People`s Park Centre. He reached there around 9pm. PW3 took PW1 for a medical examination the next day to determine if she had been raped. PW6`s mother arrived in Singapore that day.

The following day, which was 23 April 1995, PW3 made an appointment to see the appellant at People`s Park Centre at 3pm. Only Mrs Teo and Madam Teo turned up. PW3 insisted that he wanted to see the appellant. He arranged another meeting for the evening.

That evening, PW3, together with PW1, PW6 and PW6`s mother met the appellant. The appellant went with his wife and four other family members. PW3 asked the appellant what he had done to PW1. The appellant replied that he had only caressed PW1`s thigh and kissed her on the cheeks. The appellant apologised. PW3 asked the appellant whether he had done other things. He specifically asked whether PW3 had squeezed PW1`s breasts. The appellant remained silent.

PW3 asked PW1 whether the appellant had squeezed her breast. PW1 said, `Yes, with great force.` PW3 confronted the appellant, who apologised. The appellant insisted that he had only caressed PW1`s thigh and kissed her. PW6`s mother then confronted the appellant. Mrs Teo and the appellant`s daughter stood up and said, `If that`s the case, we will see you in court.` PW3 left when he heard that. The meeting ended and PW3 took PW1 to make a police report.

A tape recording of a telephone conversion between PW3 and Madam Teo was admitted with the consent of the defence. In it, Madam Teo said that the appellant had sometimes admitted and sometimes denied that he touched PW1`s breasts.

PW6

PW6 gave evidence that...