FDH jailed for stealing branded clothes from ex-employer

Shatin Magistrates Courts

BEWARE of jilted ex-lovers and their kin.

A Filipino domestic helper learned this bitter lesson after a Shatin judge found her guilty of stealing around $10,000 worth of items, mostly designer and branded clothes, from her former employer.

Shatin Deputy Magistrate Lam Tsz-kan sentenced R.A. Pelongo to six months imprisonment for the clothes and an old mobile phone of her former employers in Ma On Shan.

“The prosecution was successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that [the defendant was guilty of theft],” Judge Lam said.

Pelongo was the domestic helper of the complainant—a businesswoman identified as Mrs. Tong—from 2011 to 2015. The domestic worker then found another employer after refusing to extend her contract with the Tongs in September 2015.

But a month after finishing her contract, Pelongo broke up with her girlfriend—another Filipino domestic helper named Michelle—and then her troubles began.

Michelle’s sister, Gemma, contacted Tong and informed the latter of items that Pelongo allegedly gave her and Michelle. These items, said Gemma, did not seem to come from “the backdoor” as Pelongo claimed.

Mrs. Tong testified in court that Gemma contacted her by phone in January 2016.

“My Filipino domestic helper stole a lot of goods and passed them on to someone as gifts,” Tong said through an interpreter.

The employer said she was informed by Gemma that her name, address, and phone number, were also found in a remittance receipt that Pelongo left in the boarding house that Gemma, Michelle, and Pelongo previously shared near Tai Po.

Tong and Gemma then agreed to meet in Tai Po.

“When she showed me those goods, I decided to call the police because I realized many of the items were missing and that my son lost $2,000 cash. He was supposed to use the sum to buy an iPhone,” Tong said.

During her testimony, Tong identified several items that belonged to her and her family, including an old Nokia phone, and clothes or jackets from Burberry, Emporio Armani, and Brooks Brothers, among others.

Tong said that whenever she would look for certain piece of clothing that she wanted to wear, and ask Pelongo about it, the latter would say she could not find it.

“She would say, ‘Maybe it was in the suitcase that was stolen by the [previous] maid’,” Tong said.

Under cross-examination, Tong denied that she gave Pelongo the clothes, adding that she was looking for those items and that some them were in mint condition because she had yet to wear them.

Pelongo’s lawyer claimed that Tong gave the clothes to the defendant and told her she could either dispose of them or keep them.

When shown a small reversible black and green jacket that was brought by Pelongo to court as evidence, Tong said she was looking for it. She said that while the jacket was cheap, she liked it because it could be mixed and matched with her other clothes.

When the defense pointed out that the jacket was small for her and that it could have belonged to her son, Tong said she was “skinny”.

“I never gave these items to the defendant. She stole so many items from me. My LV (Louis Vuitton), Burberry bags, rice, and canned foods,” she said.

Asked why she did not report these to police and why she even wanted Pelongo to extend her contract for another two years, Tong said she was not aware that the Filipina was stealing from her and that she had no evidence.
On the other hand, Gemma told the court that after Pelongo and her sister broke up in October 2015, she started suspecting that the gifts did not come “from the backdoor” as claimed by Pelongo.

After she and Pelongo had a falling out, she then went to the police to report her suspicions about the clothes and the mobile phone.

Michelle, on the other hand, told the court she suspected Pelongo of stealing a gold necklace from her wallet. The necklace was a gift from Pelongo herself when they were still together.

In her defense, Pelongo said the clothes and mobile phone that were submitted as prosecution evidence were given to her by Tong and her family.

She denied giving the clothes to Michelle, adding that her ex-girlfriend was slim, while her former employer was not.

Pelongo also said that she gave those clothes to her other friends because she did not want Michelle to “smell like her former employer.”

“I don’t know how Gemma and Michelle got those clothes from our other friends,” Pelongo said.

Pelongo denied stealing the clothes. She said Gemma might have contacted her former employer because she wanted to stop paying for Gemma and Michelle’s loans.

Michelle told the court Pelongo should continue paying because both of them took out the loan.

In convicting Pelongo of the charge, Judge Lam said the clothes submitted by the prosecution in court as evidence looked “new”, “not abandoned”, and not old and worn as claimed by the defense.

As the case involved breach of trust, he said there was no reason to reduce Pelongo’s sentence despite the latter’s previously clear record.