Juridical Analysis of Indictments and the Application of Law in Crime
(Case Study of Decision: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN Jakarta Utara)
Indonesia is a country of law, Chapter VII Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution. In relation to the right to prosecute, stop prosecution and set aside prosecution, there are two principles known, namely legal en het opportunity beginsel. The legality principle stated in Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. "The legality principle is the principle / joint which confirms that the Criminal Law only applies if there is a written legal regulation." or nullum delictum, nulla poena sine pravia lege peonali.
The letter of indictment submitted to court must meet the formal and material requirements (Article 143 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code). That an indictment may not be obscurely obscure or according to its content it is doubtful. The indictment letter must clearly contain all elements of the criminal act (bestanddeel) charged (voldoende en duidelijke opgave van het feit). Obscuur object of the lawsuit can occur such as if the size of the object of the lawsuit listed is not the same as the actual object, it can be called an obscuur libel as viewed from the decision. Supreme Court No. 81 K / Sip / 1971.
As in Part Two, Chapter X, Article 84, Article 85, and Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which District Court is authorized to hear a case. The guideline base determines the judicial authority for each District Court in terms of relative competence.
The criteria that can be used by the District Court as a yardstick to test their authority to try cases delegated by the public prosecutor include:
1. The criminal act is committed (locus delicti) (Article 84 Paragraph (1) KUHAP)
2. The residence of the defendant and the residence of most of the witnesses summoned (Article 84 Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Based on decision No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr, the District Court which has the authority to judge based on Article 84 Paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is the North Jakarta Court. Considering based on legal facts it should be the Central Jakarta District Court.
The form of the criminal case indictment in the verdict: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr uses the alternative indictment, where the first indictment of Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code concerning forgery of letters (valsheid) or the second indictment of Article 374 of the Criminal Code concerning Embezzlement (verduistering) Based on the decision of the public prosecutor, he cannot prove his first charge, namely Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code concerning forgery of letters (valsheid), so that Defendant is released on the charges.
The criminal case indictment in the verdict: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr is not made clear how the crime of embezzlement (verduistering) was carried out and also does not clearly state the time and time and place where the embezzlement was committed. (tempus delicti and locus delicti) The indictment also did not clearly state the consequences arising from the act, which resulted in the party being aggrieved.