 |
| The Filipina walked out free from the High Court after winning her appeal |
A Filipina domestic helper sentenced
to 4 years and six months for an alleged indecent assault on her young ward
was ordered freed at the High Court earlier today, Oct. 20, after her application for
leave to appeal against her conviction was allowed.
The 46-year-old Filipina, a
self-confessed lesbian identified only by her initials SRM in court, was
released after serving 18 months of the sentence meted on her by District Court
Judge Johnny Chan in April last year.
In allowing her application,
the three Court of Appeal justices ruled that the lower court judge was wrong in accepting the young boy’s allegations against the maid when they were in fact
contrary to the evidence presented.
They also held that Judge
Chan was wrong in failing to properly consider the “inherent improbabilities”
of the boy’s evidence, in particular his claim of having been coaxed by the
maid into full sexual penetration while his penis remained soft.
SRM was convicted by Judge Chan
on Feb 29, 2016 on three charges of indecent assault against the boy, referred to as "X" in court.
At the time of the alleged
indecent assaults, between July 2011 and March 2013, X was between 8-10
years old. He did not make the allegation against SRM until July 7, 2015, when
he was already 13 years old. He claimed he understood the nature of the sexual assaults committed against him only
after learning about animal reproduction at school earlier that year.
By then, SRM had long left
the family, parting with them “on perfectly amicable terms” and even meeting
with them socially on occasions afterwards.
In the first and second
charges, the boy accused SRM of indecently assaulting him on two occasions one
week apart in the bedroom that they share with X’s elder sister. On both occasions X claimed there was
penetration.
In the third incident, which
took place in the bathroom, X said he sat on the toilet bowl cover and the
appellant stood between his legs and held on to the cistern as he penetrated
her.
The appellant, giving evidence, said the accusations were
only made up by the boy for reasons she did not know. But she said the boy was not
known to tell lies.
Chan, however, admitted the boy’s testimony as honest and
reliable, while saying that SRM could not explain why X should have made up the
accusations.
The judge also said he
believed that X had penetrated SRM because the boy was adamant he did so.
In their written judgment,
the appeal court, led by Justice Andrew Macrae, said the case had been
difficult to resolve, “not least because the verdict depended on the unsworn
and unsupported evidence of the child of tender years making very serious
allegations some years after the event against a domestic helper in a trusted
position of unblemished character”.
They suggested that had the judge
not allowed himself to fully accept the boy’s testimony and instead looked at
the other parts of his evidence that could have supported the charge of
indecent assault, then a conviction was still possible. They said sexual
penetration was not necessary to prove a case of indecent assault.
“(However), what the judge
was not entitled to do was find that X’s penis was “soft” when he clearly said
it was, or that he must have penetrated “inside” her (SRM) when, on the account
he gave, it would have been difficult, or in Dr Ho’s (expert witness) opinion
impossible,” said the appeal court.
After ordering the Filipina’s
release, Justice Macrae told her that she should go to her lawyer so the
judgment could be explained to her.
Then SRM was to go
Immigration“ for a few administrative formalities” before she is either repatriated
or allowed to work again.
Justice Macrae earlier asked
if there was anybody in the courtroom from the Philippine Consulate after being
told by the defense that the helper might have some visa issue as her passport
was held by the Immigration Department. There was none.
No retrial was ordered as the
prosecutor, Eddie Sean, had said at the outset that he would not take further
action if the appeal was allowed.
Concurring in the decision
were Justices Ian Mc Walters and Derek Pang. – with a report from Vir B. Lumicao
