Confessing on behalf of someone else would have set them free, but it didn't work out.

The People's Court of Binh Thanh District (Ho Chi Minh City) recently held a first-instance trial of Nguyen Minh Tuan (born in 1999) and Dang Ngoc Tung (born in 1988), who were prosecuted by the District People's Procuracy for robbery with the aggravating circumstance of "using dangerous methods" under point d, clause 2, Article 136 of the Penal Code.

According to the records, in the early morning of June 21, 2016, while riding a motorbike with Tung on Dinh Bo Linh Street (Binh Thanh District), Tuan saw Ms. T. walking on the sidewalk using her mobile phone. He pointed her out and told Tung to snatch it. Then, Tuan rode the motorbike close to Ms. T. so Tung could snatch the phone, and they sped away.

Upon returning home, Tuan removed the SIM card from Ms. T.'s phone and inserted it into his own phone to use the money from Ms. T.'s SIM to play games. He then received a message: "Friend, if you see this message, please let me buy back your phone." Afterwards, Tuan and Tung took Ms. T.'s phone to sell it for 2.8 million VND (the valuation committee determined the phone to be worth 3 million VND). On the way, Tuan threw away Ms. T.'s SIM card.

The two defendants, Tuan (standing) and Tung, at the trial. Photo: YC

At noon that same day, Tuan and Tung were riding their motorbike on Dinh Bo Linh Street when they were stopped by criminal investigators from the Binh Thanh District Police. Upon checking Tuan's mobile phone, the authorities discovered the aforementioned text message, so they confiscated the phone and arrested Tuan and Tung. Subsequently, Tuan and Tung were charged and prosecuted for robbery.

In December 2016, the People's Court of Binh Thanh District held the first-instance trial but declared the case returned for further investigation because Tuan testified in court that he committed the robbery with a person named Kim, not Tung, while Tung denied the crime. Both defendants also claimed they were coerced and tortured by investigators into confessing during the investigation phase.

At this first-instance trial, Tuan and Tung admitted to the robbery and stated that they had lied and given false testimony at the trial in December 2016 because Tuan had asked Tung to let him take the blame alone so that Tung could be free to take care of his two young children (one one year old and one four years old).

At the trial, the prosecutor's representative proposed that the court sentence Tuan to two to two years and six months in prison, and Tung to three to four years in prison. During the debate, Tuan's appointed lawyer (who is a minor) requested that the court consider the prosecutor's reliance solely on a text message and the defendants' testimonies to convict him of robbery, arguing that this was insufficient. The lawyer also stated that the proposed sentence for Tuan, while lower than the minimum penalty, was still harsh and lacked leniency, given that Tuan was only just over 16 years old at the time of the crime and came from a difficult family background with separated parents.

In rebuttal, the representative of the Procuratorate argued that the conviction should not be based solely on text messages and the defendants' statements, but also on witness statements, identification records, tips, and seized evidence. The representative of the Procuratorate also stated that the proposed sentence was appropriate, below the minimum of the sentencing range, and demonstrated the humanity of the law.

In their final statements, Tuan asked the court to consider mitigating Tung's sentence so that Tung could return home to care for his wife and children. Tung also expressed remorse and asked the court to reduce his sentence. The court agreed with the prosecutor's opinion, rejected the defense lawyer's argument, and sentenced Tuan to two years and six months in prison and Tung to three years and six months in prison.

According to PLO