 |
| Place where alleged theft happened (Google Maps photo) |
A Filipina who appealed to the High Court against her conviction for theft, for which she was sentenced to 10 weeks in jail, started serving her term Tuesday after withdrawing her appeal.
Lilibeth Fabros, 51 years old, sent a letter to the High
Court last Aug. 12 saying she was withdrawing her appeal against an Eastern
Court magistrate’s decision rejecting her defense that she actually owned the gold
ring and gold necklace worth $1,000 in total that she was alleged to have
stolen from her employer.
When asked by Deputy High Court Judge E. Lee to confirm her
change of mind, she said yes.
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
“Is that you decision?” he asked.
“Yes,” she answered.
“In that case, I am now dismissing your appeal and confirming
your 10 -week sentence,” he concluded.
With the ruling, the $4,000 bail she posted at Eastern
Court would be returned to her.
Fabros indicated through her duty lawyer after she was convicted
last April 16, that she would appeal the decision to the High Court, on the
ground that Magistrate Frances Leung did not give proper weight to her
testimony.
The lawyer explained that Magistrate Leung instead gave more
weight to the testimony of her alleged victim, Linda Chan, who claimed
ownership of the two items but testified that the last time she saw them was in
1982, or 43 years ago.
Fabros was accused of stealing the ring and necklace from her employer at the latter’s flat in Dragon Garden, Tai Hang, on Nov. 15, 2021.
“Her evidence is direct and fair. She has told us when and where she put her
jewelry,” Magistrate Leung said in her ruling. “I cannot imagine why she would
invent a story.”
On the other hand, Leung said she does not believe that
Fabros was telling the truth when she claimed that she bought the two items at
a bargain from a Filipino reseller in Central, packed in a resealable plastic
bag, and had no receipt.
She noted that Fabros, who had a salary of $5,200 a month,
testified that she was in financial difficulty at that time and could not
explain during the trial how she could afford such a purchase.
