HKSAR v. Galanza Roel Cabingas

DCCC 479/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 479 OF 2015

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.In this case the defendant Galanza Roel Cabingas faces one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.He is convicted on his own plea and admission of facts.

3.The facts reveal that sometime during the day on 15 October 2014, the defendant entered a flat in Percival Street, Causeway Bay as a trespasser, and from there he stole a portable game machine, two shavers, one bag, one watch and a jewellery box containing some ornaments belonging to a couple. 

4.The total value of the property added up to about $8,600.  None of the property has been recovered.

5.Burglary is a serious offence.  The conviction of which can lead to life imprisonment.  For the offences of burglary into a domestic premises, there is very clear sentencing guideline.  The usual starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment[1].

6.In this case there is no aggravating factor, but I do not see any reason which justifies a departure from this sentencing guideline. 

Mitigation

7.The most important mitigation is his plea of guilty.

8.In additional to what the prosecution informed this court, Mr Gopaoco also in his mitigation told me about the defendant’s circumstances.

9.The defendant is aged 32, a Filipino national who came to Hong Kong in the year 2002.  He first worked as a delivery worker.  His mother and two elder sisters are all living in Hong Kong.

10.Mr Galanza has three previous convictions involving a total of four counts.  The last one was in March last year, where for two counts of “possession of offensive weapon in a public place”, he was sentenced to a total of 6 months’ imprisonment.  He is working as a cook now. He is very remorseful.  I have also read the letter he wrote to this court through his lawyer. 

11.Having considered his background, I do not see any particular reasons for extra leniency.  Therefore, having considered the set of facts as a whole, I will sentence the defendant to a term of 2 years’ imprisonment.  That is, having adopted the starting point of 3 years, I reduce it by one-third as customarily done to reflect a guilty plea. 

12.Since the defendant is an adult with a previous record of criminal convictions, he could not claim or expect any leniency on account of his age or previous record.  He is therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.