Felicia Teo's death: 26 months' jail for man who dumped her corpse, lied to police, took her belongings

SINGAPORE — A few hours after allegedly consuming a controlled drug with two friends in a Marine Terrace flat in 2007, Ahmad Danial Mohamed Rafa’ee discovered one of them dead.

Ahmad, who was then 22, and his other friend, Mr Ragil Putra Setia Sukmarahjana, then supposedly panicked and decided to dispose of 19-year-old Felicia Teo Wei Ling’s body.

The two men left her mobile phone in the vicinity of East Coast Park to give a false impression that she had gone there.

They then took her corpse to the Punggol Track 24 area where they dug a hole in the ground, poured kerosene over her body and lit it on fire.

The pair proceeded to misappropriate her laptop, camera and two camera lens. Ahmad held onto some of these devices until he was arrested in December 2020.

When the police began investigating Teo’s death in 2007, Ahmad lied that she had left the flat on her own. He also claimed that he had accused her of having many boyfriends and called her a derogatory name.

These new details surrounding Teo’s high-profile disappearance more than a decade ago surfaced in the State Courts on Friday (Oct 14), when Ahmad, now aged 37, pleaded guilty to four criminal charges.

He was sentenced to two years and two months’ jail. This was backdated to his date of arrest on Dec 15 in 2020, which means that he may not have to serve more jail time after a one-third remission of his jail term.

This was close to the 27 months’ jail sought by the prosecution. Ahmad’s lawyers, led by Mr Shashi Nathan from Withers KhattarWong, asked for 18 months’ jail instead.

Two other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.

Ahmad, a former creative manager, originally faced a capital murder charge. He was held on remand for one-and-a-half years before being granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in June this year.

This means that he can still be prosecuted for the alleged offence in the future should new evidence emerge, for instance. The murder charge will be revived if that happens.

He was granted the discharge on the prosecution’s application, because Mr Ragil remains at large and is believed to be in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Ahmad has filed an appeal against the discharge, having sought a full acquittal. The appeal is expected to be heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in the High Court in March next year.

HOW EVENTS ALLEGEDLY UNFOLDED

On Friday, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Yang Ziliang told the court that Teo and Mr Ragil were schoolmates at Lasalle College of the Arts. Ahmad worked as a graphic designer at the time and had just graduated from the same school.

All three attended a party at Lasalle before heading to a Marine Terrace flat that Mr Ragil rented with his brother. This was in the early hours of June 30, 2007.

Teo's mother lodged a missing person report with the police three days later.

When the authorities established that she was last seen with Ahmad and Mr Ragil, the police interviewed them.

They lied that she had gone to East Coast Park to meet someone after leaving the flat around 2.30am. They maintained that she never returned and they did not see her again.

With insufficient evidence to suspect foul play, no further investigations were carried out against them in 2007 and the police treated it as a missing person case until 2020.

The police reviewed her laptop and discovered that Ahmad had come into possession of it, despite his claims that she left the flat with all her personal belongings.

Ahmad was arrested on Dec 15, 2020. He then confessed that in Mr Ragil’s flat that morning, the trio had allegedly consumed the controlled drug, ecstasy.

DPP Yang told the court that according to Ahmad, Teo died sometime before 6am due to “unknown circumstances”.

WENT TO DESERTED AREA

When Ahmad and Mr Ragil realised she was dead, they came up with a plan to dispose of her body. 

They placed her body on a mattress in Mr Ragil’s room and covered it with another mattress. They cleaned up the unit and decided to tell anyone who asked that she had left earlier after Ahmad made some comments about her having many boyfriends.

They then took her mobile phone, went to the vicinity of East Coast Park around 8am, and placed the device there to support their lie that she had gone there.

Later that evening, they bought some tools at nearby hardware shops before returning to the flat.

They placed her body in a carton, sealed it with tape and carried it to the ground floor. They used the staircase to avoid being seen on closed-circuit television cameras in the lift lobby.

The pair then took a taxi to the vicinity of Punggol Track 24, which is now the site of Housing and Development Board flats. It was deserted at the time.

They dug a hole and placed the carton in it, poured kerosene on the hole and set it on fire. They covered the hole after the fire died down and left the scene.

Upon returning to the flat, they dishonestly misappropriated her laptop, camera and two camera lenses. They were worth more than S$5,000.

Ahmad admitted to giving the laptop to his father, and either giving away or selling one lens.

He kept the camera and the other lens, which the police seized after his arrest. They were no longer in working condition when seized.

PARTIAL HUMAN SKULL DISCOVERED

When Teo’s mother made a police report, Ahmad gave two sets of false information to the police, DPP Yang told the court.

On July 11, 2007 at Tanglin Police Division, Ahmad said that Teo was busy sending text messages on her mobile phone and he asked if she was texting an ex-boyfriend.

She replied that she was contacting another guy and Ahmad told her she was a b**** for having so many boyfriends, he said.

On July 25 that same year, Ahmad lied again to the police that she had left the flat on her own and he did not know what happened to her afterwards. He repeated essentially the same remarks.

DPP Yang said that because of this, the police classified the case as a missing case.

Between 2007 and 2020, they periodically reviewed the case, conducting immigration screenings and bank screening, and did mortuary checks, for example.

Police officers also “constantly engaged the family” for new information, issued a police gazette for Teo and constantly monitored social media and news platforms, DPP Yang said.

In June 2010, a partial human skull was discovered during excavation works at Punggol Track 24. Its identity was unknown at the time.

When Ahmad was arrested in 2020, a DNA analysis established that the skull likely belonged to Teo. No other remains were discovered despite experts being engaged to dig in the area.

'GENUINELY AND DEEPLY APOLOGETIC'

DPPs Yang, Lim Shin Hui and R Arvindren argued that Ahmad’s actions led to a significant wastage of public resources and he had shown premeditation and planning.

Ahmad’s defence team — Mr Nathan, Ms Tania Chin and Ms Laura Yeo — said in their mitigation plea that Ahmad contemplated surrendering to the authorities and telling the truth on “numerous occasions” until his arrest.

“However, as time went by, he felt that he had more and more to lose if he surrendered and regretfully, he could never attain sufficient courage to do so and was never ready to lose his life, career and family as a result.”

The lawyers said that he was “genuinely and deeply apologetic” to Teo’s family and friends, and acknowledged that his actions “put them through miserable uncertainty”.

Mr Nathan told the court that on that fateful morning, Ahmad acted out of youthful folly and shock. He had also supposedly tried to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Teo after realising she was unresponsive.

In sentencing Ahmad, the judge said that he “callously took advantage” of Teo’s death by taking her belongings.

He also kept her friends and family in the dark, leaving them unable to find closure, the judge added.

For depositing a corpse, Ahmad could have been jailed for up to six months or fined up to S$2,000, or both.

Anyone convicted of misappropriating a deceased person's property can be jailed for up to three years and fined.

If found guilty, a person who fabricate false evidence to be used during a judicial proceeding can be jailed for up to seven years or fined.

For giving false information to a public servant, a person can be jailed for up to six months or fined up to S$1,000, or both. The same punishment applies to those who fail to give notice or information to a public servant when legally bound to do so.