Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Siaosi [2012] WSSC 38 (22 May 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Siaosi [2012] WSSC 38

Case name: Police v Siaosi

Citation: [2012] WSSC 38

Decision date: 22 May 2012

Parties: Police and Amelia Diedre Siaosi

Hearing date(s): 19, 20, 21 April 2010, 18, 19, 24 May 2010

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Vaai

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:

Precious Chang and Leinafo Taimalelagi for prosecution

Rosella Papalii for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Naniseni v R,

R v Mc Dermott,

DPP v Ping Lin

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE

Prosecution

AND

AMELIA DIERRE SIAOSI female of Asaga Savaii and Vaivase-uta

Defendant

Counsel: P Chang and LTaimalelagi for prosecution

R Papalii for defendant

Hearing: 19, 20, 21 April 2010, 18, 19, 24 May 2010

Reasons: 22 May 2012

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. The accused since the year 2003 was employed by the South Pacific Business Development (SPBD) an organisation established to assist women to establish and operate small business by interalia providing finance through small loans, and by managing and operating savings account through its central office at Apia or through its various sub centers throughout the country.
   
2. The accused in 2007 worked principally in the Apia office as a finance officer. Her duties involved the handling of cash on a daily basis. She and other officers assisted customers to fill out slips and getting the customer to sign the withdrawal slip. The withdrawal slip and the passbook are then taken to the General Manager for approval. After approval, cash is then disbursed to the customer.
   
3. At the end of the day each transaction is then posted to the Register Book and initialed by the officer who handled the transaction.
   
4. On the 4^th October 2007 the accused ceased working for SPBD without giving notice. When her request for leave was refused she promptly walked out and never returned.
   
5. In late October 2007 SPBD was alerted and investigations commenced when several customers were suspected of over drawing their accounts. Ms Meleisa was one of those customers and she was brought to the Apia center on the 30^th October 2007 to explain her overdrawn savings account. Ms Meleisa was understandably very surprised because she made no withdrawals at all and her passbook showed no withdrawals. But the several original withdrawal slips were uncovered by SPBD officers during the investigations, filled in by the accused and approved by the General Manager totaling $11,000. The withdrawals were also recorded in the register book and the initials of the employee who posted the transactions were identified as those of the accused.
   
6. The accused was summoned to the SPBD office on the 30^th October 2007. She was located at the National Hospital. She was questioned. She was well known to Ms Meleisea as she was on a number of occasions whilst employed by SPBD a recipient of hospitality and kindness of Ms Meleisea. Ms Meleisa was obviously agitated and felt betrayed when she realised it was the accused who made the withdrawals from her savings account.
   
7. The accused apologised to Ms Meleisea. She also wrote a written admission after allegedly admitting verbally to the General Manager and a Senior officer of SPBD her involvement with Ms Meleisea’s savings account. The admissibility of both the verbal and written admission have been challenged. During the course of this ruling I will give reasons for admitting both the oral and written admissions.
   
8. The accused in her admissions said she used fake passbooks to make the withdrawals. Those passbooks have been destroyed and thrown away by the accused.
   
9. The prosecution alleged that the accused created fake passbooks, filled in false withdrawal slips, forged the customers signatures, obtained the required approval and withdrew the cash for herself.
   
10. It is also contended by the prosecution that in some instances, the accused attended to the customers who came to the Apia office to withdraw cash from their savings account. The accused entered on the withdrawal slip and the customers bank book the correct amount requested by the customer, got the customer to sign the withdrawal, obtained the general manager’s signature of approval on the slip. She then altered the withdrawal slip to show a larger amount, gave the customer the amount requested by the customer, and took the difference between the real amount withdrawn and the altered one for herself.
    
11. An illustration of such a transaction was evidenced by the testimony of the customer Faavevela Fereti (Fereti) and others. Fereti testified she withdrew twenty seven tala ($27) on 1^st August 2007. Her savings passbook (Exhibit “P48”) shows a withdrawal of $27. But the withdrawal slip for the same withdrawal on 1/8/07 shows $127. The prosecution alleges that the accused wrote in the figure 1 infront of $27 and added the word hundred before twenty seven on the withdrawal slip after the General Manager gave approval. She then gave the customer $27 and kept $100 for herself. The prosecution also alleged that the initial on the register book is that of the accused when she posted the transactions for that day. A copy of the withdrawal slip (exhibit 49) is attached marked “A”.
    
12. Isabel Tuatagaloa (Isabel) was the senior staff accountant for SPBD from 2003 to 2007. The accused as one of the finance officer was responsible to and under the supervision of Isabel in her daily duties, one of which was the daily postings of the withdrawal transactions she handled during the day. Over the years, Isabel became acquainted with the accused’s signature and initials.
    
13. The prosecution also contends that the written agreement prepared by SPBD’s law firm and executed by the accused at the office of the complainant’s solicitor is proof of the guilt of the accused. The agreement essentially recorded the taking by the accused of the monies and the undertaking by the accused to repay that money. The admissibility of that Agreement is also challenged.
    
14. In the course of this ruling I will give my reasons why the admissibility of that agreement as proof of the guilt of the accused is rejected.
    

Written admission by the Accused

15. As stated in paragraph 6 above the accused was brought to the complainant’s main office at Apia on the 30^th October 2007. Ms Meleisea the customer whose account was overdrawn was already at the office. The accused was fetched from the hospital by an employee of the complainant. Her daughter was admitted to hospital that same day.
    
16. The accused told the court she was tired and had hardly slept. She requested the employee who came to hospital if she could come another day but she was told that the General Manager was going off island that evening. When she arrived the General Manager and a senior employee (Luapene) were waiting and they talked. Luapene then accused her of stealing and despite her protests and denials Luapene told her the investigations confirmed it was the accused who took the money. She went on to say that Luapene told her that the police have been alerted to come and take her if she did not admit.
    
17. She also told the court that Luapene showed her the withdrawal slips and again threatened the accused and demanded the accused to admit to the stealing otherwise the police who have already been notified will take her away. The accused was asked how she felt at the time (page 31 transcript of 21/4/2010)

Question: How did you feel at the time the statement was made to you?

Answer: I felt scared

Question: Why did you feel scared?

Answer: It is because I have come from the hospital, I felt tired and all that, and remember I am the wife of a pastor, I have never been accused like this before, this was the first time, and I have been intimidated, the police was mentioned and I felt scared when I replied to Luapene.

Question: Then what?

Answer: Luapene pointed to the money taken from the woman’s savings. My reply to Luapene please I did not do anything but Luapene threatened me and said if I do not say yes it means the police will be called.

Question: Which woman?

Answer: Mataomanu Meleisea

Question: then what?

Answer: I answered Luapene no please I did not do anything like it but Luapene was so demanding and said Amelia if you do not answer now that you took the money the police have already been instructed to come and take you. She then told me to write down what she will dictate to me that I took the money although I have told her I did not, but remember I was afraid and that is why because she threatened the police will take me.

Question: Continue with what she told you to write as you stated to the court

Answer: She told me to write and signed that I took the money of Mataomanu Meleisea.

18. The accused asserted that she was pressured and under stress at the time. She claimed that Luapene in particular was accusatory intimidating and forceful in her interrogation which influenced the accused to write the written admission.
    
19. Luapene gave a different account of the meeting. She denied making any accusations. When the accused was brought to the office the customer Ms Meleisa was already at the office. The General Manager, an expatriate, told the accused the purpose of the meeting. Luapene translated for the General Manager. Luapene on instructions from the General Manager showed the questionable withdrawal slips to the accused. At that moment the accused admitted it was not Meleisa but her who did it. In response to the Manager’s query as to the whereabouts of the passbook the accused replied she used a fake passbook which she has discarded.
    
20. Before the meeting ended Ms Meleisea voiced her displeasures to the accused who in turn apologised to Ms Meleisea and to the General Manager. The General Manager then requested the accused to put in writing her admission which the accused did.
    
21. Naniseni v R (1971) NZLR 269 has always been treated as the leading authority as to what constitutes voluntariness. The confession of an accused person is admissible as a matter of law against him at his trial subject to the preliminary requirement that the prosecution must affirmatively prove it to have been made voluntary. What is stated at page 274 of Naniseni v R (supra) is the essential issue here:
    

“But in our opinion the word “voluntary” where used to describe the essential characteristic of an admissible confession, must be taken to signify that the will of the person making the confession has not been overborne by that of any other person. If the factor which is set up as rendering the confession not voluntary is something in the nature of threats, violence, or to adopt the enumeration of Dixon J in R v Mc Dermott, ‘duress, intimidation, persistent importunity or sustained or undue insistence or pressure”, whatever is alleged as an inducement must have been brought to bear on the prisoner by some other person and to have influenced him to make the confession.”

22. If I accept that Luapene coerced the accused into making the oral and written admissions by threat of police custody or undue insistence into submissions to make an admission then the statement was not made voluntarily. The prosecution must show that the statement did not owe its origin to such a cause. As stated by Lord Morris in DPP v Ping Lin (1975) 3 All E R 175 at 178:

“The test is simply whether the Crown have proved that a statement made by an accused was voluntary in the sense that it was not obtained from him either because some person in authority exercised fear or prejudice or held out hope or advantage.

23. I reject the allegations by the accused, a 37 year old wife of a pastor, that she believed the police at the command of Luapene would come and take her away and lock her up if she did not admit making the false withdrawal slips to withdraw monies from the account of Ms Meleisea. At the beginning of her testimony she portrayed herself as a strong willed if not high minded character when she told the court that she walked out of her employment with the complainant and never to be seen again when her request for leave to travel to American Samoa was refused. Her attempt to convince the court she was succumbed to make the admission by reason of fear of being taken away by the police is not worthy of consideration. It would be a betrayal to common sense to believe such an explanation from a 37 year old wife of a pastor.
    
24. I also reject her allegation that she was coerced by Luapene to write down her admission which Luapene dictated to her. Luapene was not questioned on this issue under cross examination.
    
25. The challenge to the admissibility of the written and verbal admission is rejected.
    

The written Agreement

26. I will now consider the admissibility of the written agreement prepared by the firm solicitors for the complainant, signed by the accused.
    
27. Ms Kirstin Drake (Kirstin) a staff solicitor of the law firm of Drake & Co, Solicitors for the SPBD told the court she met with the accused, Luapene and the General Manager on the 14^th November (some 14 days after the accused gave the written admission). The purpose of the meeting which was arranged by Luapene and the General Manager was to discuss how the accused would repay the money she has stolen. At that time the investigations by the complainant have not been completed but a Statement of claim has been filed on instructions by SPBD for the purpose of obtaining a Departure Prohibition Order from the Court to prevent the accused from leaving the country. It appears from the evidence that at that time the Statement of claim and summons were not served on the accused and she was not aware of the Departure Prohibition Order.
    
28. Kirstin discussed with the accused the request by the complainant to pay back the $11,118 she has stolen using the account of Ms Meleisea. She was also told the investigations were continuing. The accused agreed to enter into an agreement and left the office.
    
29. Kirstin and the accused met again on the 26^th November 2007 after the accused was served with the Summons and Statement of claim. Kirstin was unsure who instigated the meeting. The accused told the court it was the solicitor who wanted the meeting and I accept the accused’s version that the solicitor requested the meeting bearing in mind the written agreement was prepared by the solicitor at SPBD’s request. At the meeting Kirstin told the accused that a draft agreement was prepared and sent to SPBD for approval and the total amount to be paid by the accused has been increased from $11,118 to over $70,000 to account for monies stolen, interest and legal costs. The accused was also told that her husband need to sign the agreement as guarantor and both the accused and the husband will be informed once the agreement was finalized and for both of them to seek independent legal advice.
    
30. Three days later Kirstin telephoned the accused that the agreement for ready for execution. She told the accused the total amount of money taken by her was $51,348. Legal fees and interest at 20% have also been incorporated in the agreement. A lump sum payment of $35,000 in December 2007 is stipulated to which the accused responded it was very unlikely that she would get $35,000 by December.
    
31. On the 5^th December 2007 the accused attended the office of Drake & Co to sign the agreement. Her husband did not accompany her for the reason that he had taken their 9 year old son and left her. She was attended to by Ruby Drake (Ruby) the senior partner of Drake & Co. Ruby took the accused through the agreement, explained to her the contents and inquired if the accused had any queries. The accused then signed the agreement.
    
32. Other than telling Ruby why the husband left the home and did not attend to sign the agreement as guarantor, the accused also told Ruby that she could not pay the amount shown in the agreement, she would pay as much as she could each month, she would ask relatives and friends for assistance and she was also paying her loan to SPBD.
    
33. The accused had a different version of the meeting with Kirstin. She was adamant that she met with Kirstin only once and Luapene and the General Manager were not present. That meeting was on the 14^th November when the accused went to the office of the complainant in response to a letter from SPBD delivered to the accused. When she got to the office of SPBD she was directed by the General Manager to go and see Kirstin concerning her debt to SPBD. On her second visit she met with Ruby who told her to sign a piece of paper to acknowledge the date she visited the office. At all times she thought and believed that she visited the lawyer about her $2,000 loan with SPBD and Kirstin was her counsel.
    
34. The accused said she went to Drake & Co’s office the second time in response to a call from the office that Ruby wanted to talk to her. Initially she refused to go but she did when she was told that it was a short matter Ruby wanted to discuss. When she met with Ruby the accused was advised of the balance of her loan with the complainant. She agreed she had a balance but she was not working at the time. Ruby then gave a paper to sign which she did. She never read any agreement neither was any agreement explained to her.
    
35. As solicitors both Kirstin and Ruby kept minutes and briefs of their meetings with the accused and with Luapene and the General Manager. The accused on the other hand kept none. Her confusion as to the dates was exposed under cross examination.
    
36. I accept that at the first meeting on the 14^th November with Kirstin the accused had admitted to the misappropriation of about $11,000 from the account of Ms Meleisea. She agreed to reimburse. She was told however that investigations were continuing. Contention by the accused that she believed Kirstin was her solicitor is rejected. She was served with a Statement of claim and Summons filed by Kirstin on behalf of SPBD.
    
37. She went back to see Kirstin on the 26^th November after she received the Statement of Claim and Summons for a claim totaling $11,000. This second meeting was at the request of either Kirstin or of Luapene or the General Manager. The Statement of Claim and Summons was listed for mention in Court on the 10^th December 2007. Kirstin told the accused the draft agreement discussed on the 14^th November has been sent to the complainant for confirmation. She also told the accused that investigations have been completed and the amount of $11,000 in the Statement of claim will be amended and increased to in excess of $70,000 to cover monies she stole, interest and legal fees.
    
38. When Kirstin telephoned the accused on the 29^th November (3 days after their meeting at Kirstin’s office) to inform the accused of the contents of the agreement those contents were obviously approved by SPBD. The quantum of monies was obviously not explained to the accused as to how the figure was arrived and from which customer’s account. No copy of the agreement was given to the accused for her perusal.
    
39. Ruby Drake did explain the contents of the agreement before it was signed, it does not cure the major defect that a copy should have been given to the accused before she went to the office on the 5^th to sign, whether she wished to consult counsel or not. She should have been given a copy prior to signing. She has to agree to the terms and contents of the agreement she was executing. Accounts of a number of customers were alleged to have been tampered with. The total amount stated in the Agreement to have been stolen does not tally with total amount alleged in all the informations.
    
40. Although the accused initially agreed to enter into an agreement to reimburse the monies she stole from Ms Meleisea the written agreement cannot be held admissible as an admission by the accused to all the informations of theft and forgery laid against her. The agreement is accordingly held admissible.
    

The Informations

41. The accused was originally charged with 98 informations each alleging the crime of Theft as a Servant contrary to sections 85 and 86 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961. She was also charged with 98 corresponding informations each alleging the crime of forgery. At the trial 3 informations alleging theft and 3 informations alleging forgery were withdrawn. Some amendments, all minor in nature, were made to some informations.
    
42. The accused exercised her constitutional and common law rights not to give evidence and no adverse inference is to be drawn therefrom.
    
43. The prosecution case against the accused is outlined in paragraphs 7 to 15 above. The defence through its cross examination and final submission is:

(a) there is a big hole in the Prosecution’s chain of evidence creating a reasonable doubt;

(b) the so-called fake passbooks used by the accused to withdraw the customers monies were not produced as exhibits.

(c) the testimony of Isabel that she could identify the three different initials of the accused in the register book should be treated with great suspect.

(d) the oral and written admissions given by the accused at the complainants office and the written agreement prepared by complainant’s solicitor should not be admitted as evidence.

The Witness Isabel

44. Isabel was employed by the complainant since 2003. She assisted in the investigations by comparing signatures and initials in the passbooks and the register book. She identified the initials in the register book alongside the questionable transactions as those of the accused. Isabel told the court that she worked with the accused since 2003 and during those years she was familiarised with the accused’s three different initials in the register book. But Isabel could not identify the initials and signatures of other officers of the complainant who also served customers and posted the transactions in the register book.
    
45. Bearing in mind the standard of proof in criminal trials I agree with counsel for the accused that it would be dangerous to place too much weight in the handwriting identification issue on the testimony of Isabel alone. The accused however in her evidence during the voir dire hearing acknowledged her signature and initials in the written admission which she wrote in the presence of the General Manager. It is that initial which the court will compare with the initials alongside the questionable transactions in the register book and in the customer’s passbook. The testimony of Isabel concerning the other two initials of the accused is rejected.
    

Informations 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407 (Theft as a Servant)

46. Ms Meleisea gave evidence in support of these informations except informations 1406 and 1407. She was shown seven withdrawal slips allegedly signed by her to withdraw on seven different occasions several amounts of monies namely $800, $850, $1000, $1800, $2000, $2000 and $2000. A total of $10,450. Her passbook did not show any withdrawal. The accused in her written admission admitted filling the withdrawal slips, forging Ms Meleisea’s signature and using a fake passbook to withdraw the several amounts. Informations 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404 and 1405 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise the corresponding informations 1514, 1523, 1525, 1531, 1538, 1539, 1544 alleging forgery are for the same reasons also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
47. As to informations 1406 and 1407 alleging theft of $150 and 1577 respectively; as well as informations 1571 and 1577 alleging forgery, despite the written admission by the accused that she filled the withdrawal slips and forged Ms Meleisea’s signature, the two withdrawal slips were not shown to Ms Meleisea in the witness box which is a clear indication the two withdrawal slips were not shown to the accused when questioned in the presence of Ms Meleisea. Isabel during her testimony was not asked to identify the two transactions in the register book and to identify the initials alongside the transactions. The two informations of theft and two of forgery are accordingly dismissed.
    
48. 
    

49. The witness Eseta Filisi (Filisi) was a customer of the complainant from the year 2001 to 2006. She was shown five withdrawal slips signed by her to withdraw the five amounts shown above. Filisi did not sign the withdrawal slips. There is no evidence to suggest it was the accused who filled the slips and signed Filisi’s name. Neither was the register book entry referred to during Isabel’s testimony to confirm that it was the accused who posted the transactions. The submissions by the prosecution that the entry in the register book shows that the accused posted the transaction is proof she released to herself the funds after she filled the withdrawal slips, forged the customer’s signature and obtained the required approval is misleading. The Register Book was produced by Isabel the very last witness called by the prosecution. Isabel did not go through the Register book and identified the postings of the transactions testified to by Ms Meleisea, Filisi and other witnesses whose testimonies will be covered by this ruling.
    

50.

51. Falanika Pagaialii (Falanika) was a customer of the complainant and her savings account had a balance of $100. She denied signing the five withdrawal slips for the withdrawal of the five amounts shown above on five different occasions in March 2007. She did not have those amounts to withdraw. But again these informations must suffer the same fate as the previous ones. When Isabel produced the Register Book she did not identify the transactions involving the withdrawals made under Falanika’s name. The submission by the prosecution that the register book shows that the defendant released the amounts in the informations to Falanika is again misleading. All informations are dismissed.
    

53. Feseai Taii (Taii) a customer of SPBD denied withdrawing the three amounts shown above. The signature on the three withdrawal slips are not hers. Again the submission by the prosecution concerning the entry in the Register book is not factually correct in the sense the connection was not given in testimony so as to give the defence the opportunity to question it by cross examination. When Isabel testified and produced the Register Book she specifically identified 35 transactions posted in the Register involving 35 customers whose accounts were meddled with. Taii and other customers already referred to in this ruling were not included in the 35 alluded to by Isabel. All the six informations are dismissed.
    

Informations 1435 and 1533

54. The prosecution alleges that the accused dishonestly took or converted $800 from SPBD on the 23^rd May 2007 by willfully making a false withdrawal slip and signing the name Faifua Lomiga. Faifua Lomiga (Lomiga) was a customer of SPBD. He denied signing a withdrawal slip and denied withdrawing the $800. For the same reasons given above these two informations are also dismissed.
    
55. 
    

56. Mili Ionatana a customer of SPBD denied withdrawing $700 and $550 in May 2007 and $1,000 in June 2007. She also denied signing the withdrawal slips. Submissions by the prosecution concerning the entry in the Register Book is rejected and for the reasons already stated concerning the other customers. All the 6 informations are dismissed.
    
57. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused on the 26^th June 2007 dishonestly took from SPBD $400 by willfully making a false withdrawal slip and signing the name Akenese Fotoi (Fotoi). Fotoi a customer of SPBD denied both signing the withdrawal slip and withdrawing $400. Again for the reasons already given above the two informations 1436 alleging theft and 1546 alleging forgery are dismissed.
    
58. Informations 1442 and 1550 allege that the accused on the 5^th July 2007 dishonestly took from her employer SPBD $808 by willfully making a false withdrawal slip and signing the name Tulolo Ah Heti. Tulolo Aheti a customer of SPBD denied making and signing a withdrawal and she also denied withdrawing $808. For the same reasons given above the two informations are dismissed.
    
59. Informations 1446 and 1569 allege that the accused on the 24^th August 2007 dishonestly took from SPBD $200 by willfully altering a withdrawal slip after the slip was signed by the customer and approved by the General Manager. The prosecution contended that the customer Sapini Tualogo signed the slip to withdraw $150 but after the withdrawal slip was approved and signed by the General Manager, the accused altered the amount on the slip to $350, gave $150 to the customer and kept the $200 for herself. Sapini Tualogo acknowledged the signature on the withdrawal to be hers. The amount on the withdrawal slip in words and figures is $350. But the amount in the passbook being withdrawn the same date is $150. The passbook is initialed by the accused as the officer who served the customer. The initials in the passbook is identical to the accused’s initial in her written admission. The amount in figures on the withdrawal slip has obviously been altered by writing the figure 3 over the figure 1 to change the withdrawal amount from $150 to $350. When the amount in words “Hundred and fifty tala” were written enough space was left between the said words and the printed words Amount in Words to insert the words Three after the approval was given by the General Manager. A copy of the withdrawal slip (exhibit 37) is attached marked “B”.
    
60. The accused took the $200. The two informations have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is guilty of the charges in both informations.
    
61. Information 1451 alleges theft as a servant and the corresponding information 1592 alleges forgery. Liua Ueli a customer of SBPD withdrew $222 from her savings account on the 4^th October 2007. She signed the withdrawal slip and her passbook to withdraw the $222. She pointed to the accused as the officer of SBPD who served her that day. The accused initials in the passbook confirmed that she served Liva Ueli on that day. But the withdrawal slip had been altered. The amounts in words and figures have been changed from $222 to $622. The only logical conclusion is that the accused who served the customer made the dishonest alterations to steal $400. No other officer could have made the alterations.
    
62. The Court is satisfied that the accused is guilty of the two charges in both informations.
    
63. Information 1459 alleges theft as a servant of $100 and the corresponding information 1585 alleges forgery. Imeleta Schuster a customer of the SPBD told the court she withdrew $45 on the 28^th September 2007. She signed both the withdrwal slip and her passbook for a $45 withdraw. But the withdrawal slip shows in words and in figures a withdraw of $145.
    
64. The accused’s initials in the customer’s passbook is a clear indication that she served the customer by filling the withdrawal slip, making entry and initialed the passbook and obtaining the General Manager’s approval. She is the only one who could have altered the withdrawal slip, gave $45 to the customer and kept the $100.
    
65. The court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the charges in both informations.
    
66. Information 1458 alleges theft as a servant of $100 and the corresponding information 1586 alleges forgery. Kelana Tokuma a customer of SPBD testified that she signed the withdrawal slip on the 28^th September 2007 to withdraw $70 and her passbook does show that she withdrew $70. But the withdrawal slip produced to the court shows a withdraw of $170.
    
67. The prosecution says the alteration to the withdrawal slip was done by the accused to facilitate her fraudulent taking of $100. The officer who attended to the customer did not initial the passbook so that there is no evidence to link the accused with the transaction. Both charges in the two informations are accordingly dismissed.
    
68. Information 1467 alleges theft of $100 and the corresponding information 1574 alleges forgery. Salafai Utuelua told the court she signed a withdrawal slip on the 7^th September 2007 to withdraw $130 from her savings account. The withdrawal slip signed by her to withdraw $130 has obviously been tampered with to alter the amount in words and figures from $130 to $230. But her passbook does not show any withdraw of $130 on that day or any other day during the month of September 2007. Neither is there any evidence to link the accused with the altered withdrawal slip. Both informations are dismissed.
    
69. Information 1468 alleges theft of $100 and the corresponding information 1579 alleges forgery. Tasileta Togialelei told the court she withdrew $30 on the 21^st September 2007. Her passbook which she signed and initialed by a SBPD officer shows a withdraw of $30. But the withdrawal slip she signed shows in figure and words $130 was withdrawn.
    
70. The prosecution says the alterations in the withdrawal slips were committed by the accused who also stole the $130. The initials in the customer’s passbook are of the accused. She attended to the customer. She made the alterations to steal $100. Both allegations in the two informations have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    
71. Information 1470 alleges theft of $100 and the corresponding information 1572 alleges forgery. Ake Petelo on the 6^th September 2007 signed a withdrawal slip to withdraw $50 from her savings account with SPBD. The withdrawal slip she signed has obviously been altered to withdraw $150 instead of $50. She did not have $150 in her bank account at the time.
    
72. The prosecution could not connect the accused with the alterations to the withdrawal slip. Both informations are dismissed.
    
73. Information 1478 alleges theft of $100 on the 1^st August 2007 and the corresponding information 1558 alleges forgery. Faavevela Fereti withdrew $27 from her savings account on the 1^st August 207. Her passbook she signed and initialed by the SPBD officer shows the $27 she withdrew. But the withdrawal slip she signed has obviously been altered to withdraw $127 instead of $27. She did not have $127 in her bank account at the time.
    
74. The accused’s initials alongside the $27 withdraw in the customer’s bank book proves beyond all doubt that she attended to the customer and she did the fraudulent alterations to steal $100.
    
75. Both allegations in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
76. Information 1480 alleges theft of $100 on the 1^st August 2007 and the corresponding information 1580 alleges forgery. Customer Opeta Ogevai told the court she withdrew $17 on the 1^st August 2007 by signing the withdrawal slip for that amount. But the withdrawal slip shown to her in the witness shows that $117 was withdrawn. Her bank book however does not record a withdrawal of $17 on the 1^st August 2007. And in any event there is nothing in the evidence to link the accused with the alleged altered withdrawal slip. Both informations are dismissed.
    
77. Information 1487 alleges theft of $400 on the 3^rd July 2007 and the corresponding information 1549 alleges forgery. The customer Uputaua Mose was called by the prosecution as the witness to prove the allegations of theft and forgery. The witness was shown a withdrawal slip dated the 3^rd July 2007 allegedly signed by her and approved by the General Manager of SPBD. The witness denied that the signature was hers.
    
78. The witness was also given her bankbook which does not record any withdraw of $400 or any other amount on the 3^rd July 2007.
    
79. For very obvious reasons both informations are dismissed.
    

Prosecution Case where the customers whose accounts have been allegedly used to commit the thefts have not been called or summoned as witnesses

80. Isabel a member of the investigating team told the court that the SPBD investigating team retrieved the withdrawal slips and counterchecked the slips against the entries in the register book.
    
81. The investigating team also attempted to contact all the current and past customers and requested their pass books. It managed to collect some of the pass books but other women (customers) have already left the programme and no longer have the passbooks. But for the customers whose pass books were collected the signatures in the passbooks were counterchecked against the signatures in the withdrawal slip and the specimen signature of the customers on the contract document which they signed when they entered the programme.
    
82. More importantly the officer who handled the questionable transaction was identified by the initials of that officer in the Register Book as the officer who handled the transaction was required each day to post the transaction and initialed each posted transaction.
    
83. Withdrawal slips for the customer Tima Pesega were counterchecked against the entries in her pass book. A withdrawal slip dated 2^nd April 2007 shows a withdrawal of $570. The signature of the customer on the withdrawal slip does match her specimen signature on the contract document and the passbook does not record an entry of a withdrawal of $570 on the same date. What is certain however is that the initial alongside the posted entry in the register book for the same transaction matches that of the accused. It means the accused filled the withdrawal slip forged the customer’s signature and presumably using a false pass book she got the General Manager’s approval and withdrew the $570. This is the very first transaction of the 35 transactions in the Register book which the witness Isabel was asked to identify.
    
84. Information 1437 alleging theft of $570 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Information 1512 alleging forgery is likewise proved to the satisfaction of the court.
    
85. Information 1441 alleges theft of $100 on the 17^th April 2007 and the corresponding information 1520 alleges forgery. The pass book for the customer Peata Siatulai records a withdraw of $120 on the 17^th April 2007. The pass book is initialed by the accused as the officer who attended to the customer. But the withdrawal slip records a withdraw of $220. The figures $120 have obviously been altered to read $220. The initials of the accused in the Register book alongside the posted transaction proves beyond reasonable doubt she forged the withdrawal slip and stole $100. Both informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
86. Information 1443 alleges theft of $600 on the 5^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1551 alleges forgery. A withdrawal slip dated 5^th July 2007 records a withdraw by the customer Lusila Peni of $640. But the passbook records a withdraw of only $40. The customer had just over $100 in her account. The accused’s initials in the passbook signifies she served the customer. She also posted the transaction in the Register book as her initials appear alongside the posted transaction. Obviously when she filled out the withdrawal slip she left enough space before the words Forty tala so she can add six hundred after approval by the General Manager. The accused is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
87. Information 1473 alleges theft of $100 and the corresponding information 1567 alleges forgery. A withdrawal slip signed on the 22^nd August 2007 by the customer Asosoifua Siu records a withdraw of $180 but the entry in her passbook for the same date records a withdraw of $80. She only had $155 in her savings at the time. The initials in the Register Book alongside the posted entry are of the accused. She served the customer and altered the amounts to facilitate her stealing. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
88. Information 1447 alleges theft of $500 on the 23^rd May 2007 and the corresponding information 1534 alleges forgery. The customer’s passbook records that Litia Faletagaloa withdrew $50 on the 23^rd May 2007. She was served by the accused whose initials appear alongside the entry in the passbook. But the withdrawal slip records a withdrawal of $550. The posted entry in the Register book is initialed by the accused. Like the other withdrawal slips she obviously left enough space before the words Fifty tala to insert Five Hundred after approval by the General Manager. The customer only had $137 in her account before the withdrawal. The accused is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
89. Information 1448 alleges theft of $300 on the 30^th May 2007 and the corresponding information 1537 alleges forgery. Customer Fia Aemalo withdrew $1230 on the 30^th May 2007. Her passbook initialed by the accused as the officer who served records a withdraw of $120. But the withdrawal slip for the same transaction shows a withdrawal of $420. The figures $120 in the withdrawal slip have obviously been altered to read $420. So are the wording of the amount withdrawn. The customer had just over $200 in her account at the time. The Register book identified the accused as the officer who attended to the customer and posted the transaction. She obviously altered the withdrawal slip after approval by the General Manager to facilitate the theft. Both charges in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
90. Information 1449 alleges theft of $300 on the 8^th June 2007 and the corresponding information 1540 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Tauloto Anae records a withdraw of $110 on the 8^th June 2007 and is initialed by the accused who served the customer. But the withdrawal slip for the same transaction shows that $410 was withdrawn. The posted entry in the register book is initialed by the accused which proved beyond reasonable doubt that she stole $300 by altering the withdrawal slip after approval by the General Manager. Both charges in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
91. Informations 1450 alleges theft of $300 on the 4^th October 2007 and the corresponding information 1593 alleges forgery. The customer Faapaia Tautu withdrew $110 on the 4^th October 12007 and is recorded in her passbook initialed by the accused as the officer who handled the transaction. But the withdrawal slip signed by the customer records a withdrawal of $410. The register book is initialed by the accused as the officer who attended to the customer and posted the transaction. Her deliberate alteration of the withdrawal slip was to facilitate the theft of $300. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
92. Information 1453 alleges theft of $100 on the 2^nd October 2007 and the corresponding information 1591 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Tafiga Finauga records a withdraw of $80 on the 2^nd October 2007. It is initialed by the accused as the serving officer. But the withdrawal slip for the same transaction shows a withdraw of $180. The transaction was posted in the Register Book by the accused who initialed it as the officer who served the customer and posted the transaction. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
93. Information 1454 alleges theft of $300 on the 2^nd October 2007 and the corresponding information 1590 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Toetu Palenapa records a withdraw of $100 on the 2^nd October 2007 and is initialed by the accused as the attending officer. But the withdrawal slip records a withdraw of $400. The posting of the transaction in the Register Book is initialed by the accused as the officer who served the customer and posted the transaction. The accused altered the withdrawal slip after it was approved by the General Manager to facilitate the theft of $300. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
94. Information 1455 alleges theft of $100 on the 1^st October 2007 and the corresponding information 1589 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Faasavalu Lautofa records that on the 1^st October 2007 the customer’s daughter withdrew $45. The contract document signed by the customer when she entered the programme specifically authorized her daughter to make the withdrawal. The withdrawal was handled by the accused who initialed the passbook. But the withdrawal slip signed by customer’s daughter and approved by the General Manager records that $145 was withdrawn. The transaction was posted and initialed by the accused in the Register book as the officer who attended the customer. The accused is the only person who could have altered the slip. She did it to steal the $100. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
    
95. Information 1457 alleges that of $100 on the 29^th August 2007 and the corresponding information 1570 alleges forgery. The prosecution did not proceed with these two informations and are accordingly dismissed.
    
96. Information 1456 alleges theft of $100 on the 28^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1587 alleges forgery. The customer Susana Peau withdrew $24 from her account on the 28^th September 2007. She had $73 in her account at that time. The withdrawal is initialed by the accused as the officer who attended to the customer. But the withdrawal slip records a withdraw of $124. The transaction was posted by the accused in the Register book. She obviously altered the withdrawal slip after approval to steal the $100. Both allegations in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
97. Information 1460 alleges theft of $200 on the 27^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1581 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Sefulu Tavae records a withdraw of $20 on the 27^th September 2007 which before the withdrawal of $20 had a balance of $47.78. But the withdrawal slip signed by the customer and approved by the General Manager has obviously been altered to read $220 instead of $20 tala. The accused attended to the customer as her initials appear in the passbook alongside the withdrawal. She also posted the transaction and initialed the register book which proves beyond reasonable doubt she altered the withdrawal slip to steal the $200. Both charges in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
98. Information 1462 alleges theft of $500 on the 27^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1583 alleges forgery. The passbook for the customer Ane Sipaia records a withdrawal of $54 from her account on the 27^th September 2007. Her account balance before the withdraw of $54 was $153.50. But the withdrawal slip signed by the customer and approved by the General Manager records a withdraw of $554. The alteration was obviously made after the approval was granted. The transaction was handled by the accused who initialed the passbook and posted and initialed the register book. The accused was the only person who could have done the alteration and she did it to steal $500. She is guilty of both informations.
    
99. Information 1465 alleges theft $100 on the 7^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1575 alleges forgery. Uputaua Afa Poutasi’s passbook records a withdraw of $100 on the 7^th September 2007. The passbook is initialed by the accused as the officer who attended to the customer. The withdrawal slip for the same transaction has obviously been altered from $100 to $200. The transaction was posted and initialed by the accused in the Register book. She was obviously the officer who did the alteration to the withdrawal slip to steal the $100. Both charges in the two informations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    
100. Information 1464 alleges theft of $100 on the 7^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1576 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Legatasi Pele records a withdraw of $60 from her account on the 7^th September 2007. She had a balance of $116 before the withdrawal. But the withdrawal slip approved by the General Manager shows a withdrawal of $160. The accused’s initials in the customer’s passbook and in the register book signify that she was the officer who attended to the customer and posted the transaction. There is no doubt she did the alteration to the withdrawal slip to steal the $100.
     
101. Information 1469 alleges theft of $100 on the 6^th September 2007 and the corresponding information 1573 alleges forgery. The passbook of customer Leata Seve records a withdrawal of $100 from her savings which had a balance of $150 before the withdrawal was made. But the approved withdrawal slip shows $200 was withdrawn. The accused initialed the passbook and the posting in the Register book. She did the alteration to facilitate the theft of $100. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
     
102. Informations 1445 alleges theft of $100 on the 22^nd August 2007 and the corresponding information 1568 alleges forgery. Taele Asuasu’s passbook records a withdraw of $110 on the 28^th August 2007. It is initialed by the accused as the attending officer. But the approved withdrawal slip for the same transaction shows $200 was withdrawn. The amount in figures in the withdrawal slip has obviously been altered from $110 to $210. The posting of transaction was done by the accused who initialed it. She obviously altered the withdrawal slip to steal the $100. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
     
103. Information 1475 alleges theft of $300 on the 17^th August 2007 and the corresponding information 1565 alleges forgery. Prosecution says the theft was committed when the accused altered the amount in the approved withdrawal slip from $100 to $400. The accused initialed customer Tuinanau Talaina’s passbook to withdraw $100 which was the amount approved by the General Manager. Subsequent to the approval the slip was altered to show $400. The accused posted and initialed the register book for the transaction she handled. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
     
104. Information 1476 alleges theft of $300 on the 3^rd August 2007 and the corresponding information 1562 alleges forgery. While customer Atina’e Mana’s passbook records a withdraw of $100 on the 3^rd August 200 the approved withdrawal slip shows a withdrawn of $400. As the passbook is initialed by the accused and the posting of the transaction in the register book is also initialed by the accused there is no cloud of doubt that she attended to the customer, altered the withdrawal slip and stole $300. She is guilty of both charges in the two informations.
     
105. Information 1477 alleges theft of $100 on the 2^nd August 2007 and the corresponding information 1561 alleges forgery. Petala Uaine a customer of SPBD withdrew $38 on the 2^nd August 2007 from her savings account with a current balance of $87. The approved withdrawal slip however shows that $187 was withdrawn and obviously this amount was not on the slip when the General Manager signed his approval. The initials of the accused in the customer’s passbook and in the Register book proves beyond doubt she altered the slip to steal the $100. She is guilty of both charges.
     
106. Information 1481 alleges theft of $300 on the 20^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1557 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Lealofi Faamanu records a withdraw of $100 on the 20^th July 2007. The officer who served the customer did not initial the passbook. The approved withdrawal slip however for the same transaction shows a $400 withdraw. The transaction was posted and initialed by the accused in the Register Book a clear and sure proof she served the customer and acquired the Manager’s approval. She altered the slip to steal the $300. Both charges in the two informations have been proved.
     
107. Information 1484 alleges theft of $100 on the 13^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1554 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Fiaalua’e Sakaio records she withdrew $49 on the 13^th July 2007. She had a balance of $97 before the withdrawn. Initials of the accused alongside the entry is proof she attended to the customer. The approved withdrawal slip shows a $149 withdrawal which undoubtedly would not have received the written approval of the Manger given the balance of the account. The entry of the transaction in Register book is initialed by the accused an unquestionable proof that she did the alteration to steal the $100. She is guilty of both charges.
     
108. Information 1483 alleges theft of $100 on the 13^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1555 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Imoa Leifi records a withdraw of $100 on the 13^th July 2007 and is initialed by the accused as the serving officer. The withdrawal slip however shows a withdrawal of $200. The amount in figures on the slip shows a deliberate alteration from $100 to $200 which was obviously done after approval by the manager was given. As the entry in the register book is also initialed by the accused there is no doubt she did the alterations to steal the $100. She is guilty of both charges.
     
109. Information 1485 alleges theft of $100 on the 10^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1553 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Lipine Meafou records a withdraw of $17 on the 10^th July 2007. The initials in the passbook by the officer who served the customer does not resemble the initials of the accused earlier identified and accepted by the court. The withdrawal slip was obviously altered after approval by the General Manager to show a withdrawal of $117 instead of $17. Isabel testified that the initial in the Register Book resembles the accused’s other initials. The court as stated earlier does not agree. The doubt must be exercised in favour of the accused. The two informations are dismissed.
     
110. Information 1486 alleges theft of $100 on the 9^th July 2007 and the corresponding information 1552 alleges forgery. Tuumanu Leaupepe’s passbook records a withdrawn of $49 on the 9^th July 2007. She had a balance of $98 before the withdrawal. The initials of the accused appear alongside the entry as the officer who served the customer. The withdrawal slip for the same transaction shows a $149 withdrawal. Given the account balance the Manager would not have given the approval. The entry in the register book is initialed by the accused. She served the customer and posted the transaction. She is guilty of both charges.
     
111. Information 1488 alleges theft of $100 on the 29^th June 2007 and the corresponding information 1548 alleges forgery. Customer Seneuefa Telea had $75 balance in her account with SPBD. On the 29^th June 2007 the sum of $25.50 was withdrawn and the initials of the accused alongside the entry in the passbook signifies that she served the customer. But the withdrawal slips shows $225.50 was withdrawn. Approval of the Manager could never have been given. The accused also initialed the entry in the Register Book. She served the customer without doubt. She altered the slip without doubt. She is guilty of both charges.
     
112. Information 1489 alleges theft of $860 on the 29^th June 2007 and the corresponding information 1547 alleges forgery. Talalelei Siaosi was not a customer of SPBD until the 2^nd August 2007 when she signed the contract document and opened an account. Investigations by SPBD uncovered a withdrawal slip by Talalelei Siaosi to withdraw $850 and was approved by the General Manager. The transaction is posted in the Register book on the 28^th June 2007 and the accused initialed the transactions. The discovery of the withdrawal slip and the entry in the Register book suggest a fake passbook was created by the accused to steal the $850. The accused is guilty of both charges.
     
113. Information 1490 alleges theft of $100 on the 16^th April 2007 and the corresponding information 1518 alleges forgery. The passbook of customer Sarona Poloai records a withdraw of $88 on the 16^th April 2007 and initialed by the accused as the attending officer. The approved withdrawal slip shows a $188 withdrawal. The Register book is initialed by the accused. She attended to the customer and posted the transaction. She altered the withdrawal slip to steal $100. She is guilty of both charges.
     
114. Information 1491 alleges theft of $100 on the 13^th April 2007 and the corresponding information 1517 alleges forgery. Tuugafala Siona withdrew $20 on the 13^th April 2007. The accused initial alongside the passbook entry is proof the accused served the customer. She also posted and initialed the Register book signifying she was the officer who handled the transaction. The withdrawal slip showing a withdraw of $120 was obviously altered after the Manager approved the $20 withdrawal. Only the accused could have altered the slip. She is guilty of both charges.
     
115. Information 1493 alleges theft of $300 on the 15^th June 2007 and the corresponding information 1542 alleges forgery. The entry in the passbook of the customer Lotu Fa’afiti to record a withdrawn of $100 on the 15^th June 2007 is initialed by the accused as the officer who handed the transaction. She also initialed the posting in the Register Book. The withdrawal slip which showed a withdrawn of $400 instead of $100 was obviously altered after the General Manager gave his approval. Only the accused could have made the alterations. She is guilty of both charges.
     
116. Information 1494 alleges theft of $300 on the 20^th March 2007 and the corresponding information 1508 alleges forgery. A withdrawal slip dated 20^th March 2007 approved by the General Manager authorized the customer Rosalia Tiatia to withdraw $300 from her account. But Rosalia Tiatia’s passbook does not record an entry of a withdraw of $300 because the prosecution says the customer did not withdraw $300. This was another example of a fake passbook created by the culprit to steal $300. And that culprit is the accused. She posted the transaction in the Register book and initialed the entry. She is guilty of both charges.
     
117. Information 1495 alleges theft of $1,000 on the 29^th May 2007 and the corresponding information 1536 alleges forgery. The passbook of the customer Onosai Mose records a withdraw of $500 on the 29^th May 2007. It is initialed by the accused as the officer who attended to the customer. The accused also posted and initialed the Register book. The withdrawal slip approved by the General Manager was obviously altered after the approval by the General Manager to withdraw $1500 instead of $500. The customer only had $828 in her account before the withdrawl was made. The accused handled the transaction and posted it. She made the alterations to steal $1,000. She is guilty of both charges.
     

totalling twenty two and all alleging theft as a servant but no evidence was called by the prosecution in support are all dismissed. The corresponding twenty two informations alleging the crime of forgery are likewise also dismissed.

Result

119. The accused is guilty of 44 counts of theft as a servant and the corresponding 44 counts of forgery. The remaining 51 informations alleging theft as a servant and 51 corresponding informations alleging forgery are dismissed.
     

____________________

JUSTICE VAAI