 |
| The acquitted defendants, friends and lawyers leave Shatin court after the verdict |
Patent
irregularities in the way immigration officers conducted a raid and arrested
six Filipina domestic helpers on charges of engaging in illegal dentistry work
on August 17 last year today (Friday) led to the acquittal of the last two remaining
defendants in the case.
Carles Lie Ramos,
34; and Cherrie Mel Patiga, 37, looked relieved but not surprised at the
verdict as there had been several instances during their seven-day trial that Deputy
Magistrate Pang Leung-ting had expressed frustration at the prosecution’s failure
to present hard evidence against them.
But their victory
was bittersweet as both lost their jobs after their arrest, and should be
homeward soon as they were only on extended visa during their trial.
Magistrate Pang
announced his decision after ruling that there was no “prima facie” evidence against
Ramos and Patiga, as the supposed confessions they made at the Sham Shui Po
flat where they were arrested was inadmissible due to a number of glaring
irregularities.
These included the
failure of the arresting Immigration officers to secure a search warrant before
raiding the place, ensuring that the continued detention of the suspects was
lawful, and not providing a Tagalog translator during the alleged confessions.
Pang decided the
two had no case to answer even before hearing their defence, and ordered their
acquittal.
 |
| The 4 defendants acquitted of illegal dentistry work walk out of court Tuesday |
On Tuesday, Pang
acquitted two other defendants in the case, Rowena M. Cerdina, 46, and Jucen L.
Naong, 40, after the prosecution offered no additional evidence against them.
The two did not
make any statements during their arrest, and the supposed cautioned statements
they made at the Immigration Department’s head office were withdrawn by the
prosecution after a number of irregularities in the way they were obtained surfaced
in court.
All four defendants were provided two sets of counsels by the Migrant Workers Office at the Philippine Consulate General in Hong Kong.
Two other
defendants in the case had earlier pleaded guilty to running the illicit dental
clinic, and have returned to the Philippines after serving their sentence.
Marites Guiang
Bohol, 48, pleaded guilty to practicing dentistry without registration, and
establishing a business in breach of her condition of stay.
Her
sister, Marissa Guiang
Necesito, 60, admitted
breaching her condition of stay, practicing dentistry without registration, and
three counts of employing persons not legally employable.
 |
| Immigration released this photo of the arrests on Aug 17 last year |
In resolving the
case against Ramos and Patiga, Magistrate Pang said he had to decide on whether
the entry of the immigration officers in the premises was legal or lawful, as
it was made without a search warrant being obtained beforehand.
“Number 110 Apliu
Street is a private property, and accordingly, it is protected by the Basic Law
against unlawful entry,” he said.
He noted that the
immigration officers said they decided to raid the premises after seeing a
Southeast Asian-looking woman with dental braces walking towards the flat on Apliu Street.
He dismissed the
officers’ claim that the raid on the flat was lawful, as it supposedly complied with the
legal requirement that a warrantless search and arrest may be made when there
is reasonable belief that a person inside the target premises may be arrested.
Pang said that
seeing a passerby with braces cannot be used as an assumption that someone inside
the flat had committed an immigration offence. “This is wrong and a dangerous prospect
that is not far from making an arbitrary arrest,” he said.
He further noted
that while there were 19 people inside the flat at the time, the officers failed
to explain why they only arrested six and released the others.
“They never stated
any factual basis for the arrests. There was no reference as to the date, time
location, and the acts made by the defendants which amounted to them committing
an offence.”
Pang also
criticized the arresting officers for putting handcuffs on the six women they
arrested when not one of them resisted or attempted to flee.
According to
information elicited by the defence from the immigration officers who testified
during the trial, the handcuffed women were made to pose for pictures with
their captors who by then had put on their official vests after conducting the
raid in plainclothes.
Pang also raised
doubts about how all four immigration officers who testified during the trial
recalled minute details of the arrest which happened nearly a year ago.
“There is a possibility
that they discussed the details of their story before they came to court,” said
the magistrate.
He also questioned
why the defendants were detained by an unauthorized officer, as the law clearly
provides that only a chief immigration officer could sign a notice of
detention.
But the time stamp
on the record kept by the arresting officers indicated that even if a notice of
detention was duly served, this was done only during or after the interview
with the defendants.
Thus, a number of
doubts were raised as to the culpability of the defendants. These included the
legality of the arrest and detention of the two, whether they were properly
informed of their rights when no Tagalog interpreter was around during the
interview, and the accuracy of the notes presented by the arresting officers.
Defense lawyer
Yasmine Zahir asked for costs, but this was immediately opposed by the prosecution,
who said the defendants’ written admission of their alleged offenses, though cast
aside during the trial, created reasonable doubts or brought suspicion upon
themselves.
Magistrate Pang
asked the opposing sides to make submissions on this point, and promised to
hand down his decision in four to six weeks.
He earlier granted
costs to the two defendants who were acquitted earlier, as they made no similar
statements during the arrests. - by Daisy CL Mandap
