 |
| Sentence was imposed at the District Court in Wan Chai |
A Filipina who admitted stealing 42 pieces of gold jewelry worth more than $350,000 belonging to an elderly woman she was working for, was jailed for 20 months at the District Court yesterday, Mar 11.
Metchie Pinated Matute, 40 years old, had claimed
she stole the valuables so she could help her family relocate to a safe place
due to supposed “tribal wars” in her hometown in Kalinga province.
But according to District Judge Adriana Tse, financial
hardship, no matter how serious, could not be accepted as a mitigation factor
in thefts, unless in exceptional circumstances.
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
Judge Tse said financial pressures, no matter how
desperate or tragic the situation of the accused is, could not be used to
mitigate an offence.
Besides, she said she doubted if Matute committed the
thefts to help her family as she had claimed, noting that the accused also admitted being heavily indebted to loan
sharks.
Matute was charged with stealing 7 bangles, one gold
ornament, 4 gold necklaces with pendant, 14 rings, 3 gold ornament fragments,
one watch and 13 gold wrist chains belonging to her elderly employer.
The thefts occurred between an unknown day in June
2024 and March 7, 2024 in a flat in Hong Kong House, Heng On Estate in Ma On
Shan, New Territories.
The thefts were evidenced by pawnshop receipts found
in the Filipina’s possession.
The judge used 30 months as starting point in
sentencing, and after giving the mandatory discount of 1/3 for the guilty plea,
came up with a final sentence of 20 months.
She refused to give any more discount for Matute’s
clean record and supposed remorse as shown by her having admitted the offences
at the earliest opportunity, saying the defendant was “guilty of dishonesty of
a recurrent nature.”
Where criminal actions are repeatedly committed it
is not right to describe the offender as having a clear record or remorseful,
said the judge.
Neither does partial recovery of the stolen items
serve to mitigate the offences because that only happened after the victim paid
the pawnshop, she added.
The judge instead emphasized that the thefts were a
serious breach of the employer’s trust as they were committed by someone who
shared not only her house, but also her bedroom.
