A domestic helper from the Philippines, who was working in Singapore, has been acquitted by the High Court here.

The accused, Portela Vilma Jimenez, was facing 10 charges.

She was accused of stealing two ATM cards from her employer and withdrawing money from his bank account in early 2017.

On Oct. 30, 2020, the High Court acquitted Jimenez of all 10 criminal charges after a successful appeal against her initial conviction by District Judge Jasvender Kaur.

The 10 charges related to Jimenez's alleged theft of two ATM cards on separate occasions, totalling eight withdrawals of S$1,000 each from her employer's UOB and POSB accounts.

These withdrawals amounting to S$8,000 took place on six occasions between January and February 2017.

Initial conviction

While Jimenez was captured on CCTV footage making the withdrawals, she claimed that her employer had consented to the withdrawals, and that she was unable to take the ATM cards without his permission.

She also claimed that he had instructed her to withdraw the cash for various reasons, including to compensate her for sexual favours he requested from her, for a trip to Johor Bahru, and to pay her salary.

In spite of this, the District Judge relied on testimony by the employer and his son, finding that the employer had "no motivation to make a false accusation against the accused and get her into trouble".

Jimenez was found guilty of 10 criminal charges and sentenced to 12 months in prison in a District Court judgment dated April 16, 2020.

Prior to the conviction, Jimenez had worked in Singapore and Kuwait for 20 years.

Acquittal at the High Court

Subsequently, the High Court acquitted Vilma of all the charges after a successful appeal.

Court documents from both the defence lawyers and the Attorney-General's Chambers seen by Mothership, reveal that neither Jimenez nor her employer were completely consistent in their account of what happened, with both parties surfacing matters that were not brought up in initial statements to the police.

The case was also complicated by the "advanced age" of the employer, Yong Choong Hiong, which led to him having difficulties in recollecting some events.

Yong was 89 at the time of the alleged theft, and 91 by the time he gave evidence at trial.

One such difficulty involved Yong's statement in his police report.

He reported to the police the incident of the allegedly unauthorised withdrawals at a UOB branch at Raffles Place on Feb. 2, but he could not remember whether he had made the visit when asked about it during the trial.

UOB had no records of this visit, although bank employees testified that had Yong indeed reported the case as per his initial claim, the bank's standard practice involved getting customers to sign off on reports of unauthorised withdrawals.

Jimenez was also unable to recall making withdrawals on Jan. 21 and Jan. 30.

She also claimed in court that Yong attempted to have sexual intercourse with her, though this was not mentioned in her prior statements to the police.

The court heard that Jimenez said Yong had agreed to pay her twice for sexual intercourse, but they did not happen.

Yong was unable to penetrate her on one occasion and she did not agree to it on another, the court was told.

The defence also presented the case that Yong had agreed to pay her S$500 each time Jimenez allowed him to touch her breasts and crotch, and that she was paid on four occasions for this.

Plugging gaps

Before the High Court, Jimenez's defence lawyers argued that the prosecution "did not elicit or lead any evidence" on certain key points, namely, the questions of how Jimenez had accessed her employer's two ATM cards, and how she knew their PIN numbers.

The defence argued that District Judge Kaur, in convicting Jimenez, had "plugged the gaping holes in the prosecution’s case" with her own theory that Jimenez had taken and returned the ATM cards from Yong while he was sleeping, and that she knew his PIN number for both cards from seeing him entering it when the helper accompanied the elderly man to buy groceries.

The defence lawyers argued that the prosecution should not be allowed to rely on the theory of what happened, which was provided by the district judge.

Jimenez also did not have the opportunity to respond to this theory during the trial, since the prosecution did not question her on these points then.

In response, the prosecution said that it had in fact called for Jimenez to answer its contention that she had stolen the cards from Yong's wallet and guessed his PIN, which was the same for both cards.

CCTV footage also showed that "there was guesswork" in figuring out the PIN, the prosecution said.

Other inconsistencies in evidence

The prosecution and defence both pointed out inconsistencies in each other's evidence.

For example, the prosecution highlighted the fact that Jimenez claimed that she had been entrusted with the ATM cards at around 7am, but failed to challenge the elderly man's statement that his routine was to get up only at 8am.

They also pointed to Jimenez's inability to explain why she had made withdrawals of S$1,000 when she claimed that her agreements to provide Yong sexual favours involved a sum of S$500 each time.

The defence pointed out inconsistencies as well, including that Yong had delayed in making a police report till Feb. 22, even though he claimed to have reported unauthorised transactions to UOB at a branch in Raffles Place in early February.

There was a lag of about three weeks.

The defence also said that Yong "did absolutely nothing" to secure his ATM cards or the drawer in which they were kept, even after finding out about the transactions, with four allegedly unauthorised withdrawals made thereafter.

The defence also drew attention to the fact that Yong's son testified that he only found out about the unauthorised transactions on Feb. 21, when he accompanied Yong to the bank to open a joint account.

Yong's son claimed that his father wanted to open the joint account in line with the elderly man's decision to set up a Lasting Power of Attorney.

However, the bank teller who served the family on Feb. 21 testified that Yong, accompanied by his son and daughter-in-law, had gone to the bank to submit a claim form about the allegedly unauthorised withdrawals, and to open a joint account in order to "keep track on the withdrawals".

Evidence on appeal raised reasonable doubt

According to a post on the website of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP — the law firm that represented Jimenez — the High Court judge found that the evidence presented in Jimenez's appeal raised reasonable doubt on the charges, and acquitted her.

Support for Jimenez

The Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), which provides assistance for migrant workers said in a Facebook post that Jimenez was one of its beneficiaries, and that it had engaged the defence lawyers from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP on her behalf.

The law firm called Jimenez's experience an "ordeal [that] lasted more than three years", during which she was unable to work and earn an income.

Comparing her case with that of Parti Liyani, an Indonesian domestic helper who was also acquitted of theft charges this year, the firm called for donations in support of domestic helpers in similar situations.

We deliver more stories to you on LinkedIn

Top image from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP