Juridical Analysis of Indictments and the Application of Law in Crime

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. 

So that the indictment did not clearly state the beginning of the prosecution. In the action it also did not explain what was the driving factor the defendant committed the criminal act indicted by the public prosecutor. Based on the provisions of criminal law, it is found that the indictment is obscuur libel. 

As described, the indictment submitted to court does not meet the material requirements as stipulated in Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecutor's charges cannot be categorized as a criminal offense by the defendant because the elements (bestanddeel) are not completely fulfilled.

1. STAGES OF POLICE REPORT, INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATION

There was a report from the reporter Roh Jae Chung (Korean citizen) on April 21, 2016 at the Indonesian Police Criminal Investigation Agency, Directorate of General Crimes. In a resume made with Police Report Number: LP / 422 / IV / 2016 / Bareskrim explained that tempus delicti is March 27 2015 and locus delicti is the office of PT. DCG Indonesia, Jamkrindo Building Floor 3A, Jalan Angkasa Blok B-9 Kav.6 Kota Baru Bandar Kemayoran, Central Jakarta with suspicion of committing the Crime of Forging Letters (Valsheid), as referred to in Article 263 of the Criminal Code and the alleged Crime of Entering Information Fake into the authentic deed as referred to in Article 266 of the Criminal Code which the suspect Haryo Bimo Arianto is accused of not being fulfilled. Based on the testimony of witnesses and evidence the suspect Haryo Bimo Arianto is suspected of having committed the Crime of Embezzlement (Verduistering) in Position as referred to in the formulation of Article 374 of the Criminal Code.

2. TRANSFER OF FILES AGAINST THE AUTHORIZED JURISDICTION

 

In the case of Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code or Article 374 of the Criminal Code, it is tried at the North Jakarta District Court, if based on locus delicti, it is the relative authority of the Central Jakarta District Court as stated in the indictment of the North Jakarta Prosecutor's Office that it is delegated to the Central Jakarta Court.

This is regulated in Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code, "The public prosecutor has the authority to prosecute anyone accused of committing a crime within his jurisdiction by delegating the case to a court that has the authority to adjudicate it."

3. PROSECUTION

Based on the description of the Police Report above, it is known that the Public Prosecutor continued to use the first indictment by accusing the defendant of Falsification of Letters as formulated in Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code after a police resume stating that the element (bestanddeel) was not fulfilled that the defendant had committed a criminal act letter forgery (valsheid).

Based on the provisions of criminal law, it is found that the indictment letter in the decision: No 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr is obscuur libel. The Public Prosecutor was unable to prove his first indictment, namely Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code concerning forgery of documents (valsheid), so that the prosecutor was released on the charges. 

That the Public Prosecutor in making the indictment there was a carelessness in compiling the indictment without studying or analyzing the files. or the results of an investigation or an examination report (BAP), both witnesses and documentary evidence, causing psychological pressure on the defendant, accusing an act or action that was not committed. 

In the second indictment Article 374 of the Criminal Code concerning embezzlement, as described in the indictment submitted going to court "does not meet the material requirements" as regulated in Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code. The public prosecutor was also unable to prove the facts and evidence in court that the defendant fulfilled the elements of the criminal act of embezzlement, so it could not be categorized as a criminal act.

As a result of the indecisiveness of the indictment, "Resulted in the defendant unable to prepare a self-defense". For example, "The Supreme Court Decision dated May 10, 1969 No. 74 / K / KR / 1973: Embezzlement (verduistering) is in principle different from deception. Therefore, the material act of the criminal act of embezzlement (verduistering) must be clearly formulated in the accusation and it is not sufficient to refer to the primal accusation. canceled. "

Of course this does not reduce the right of the defendant or legal adviser to file a rebuttal or exception as stipulated in Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. in the form of an exception obscure library, without exception stating that the indictment letter is "vague" because it does not completely contain the requirements stipulated in Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code. "

Paying attention to the procedure for declaring an indictment null and void by law, through a trial examination process as outlined in the form of a judicial descision in the form of a verdict or ruling, so that the accuracy of the judge in examining the case in the indictment is necessary in order to provide legal certainty to ensure justice for the accused.

4. EVIDENCE

Judges in a criminal case are active, meaning that the judge is obliged to obtain sufficient evidence to prove the accusation to the accused. In seeking material truth, the criminal justice must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt). The problem of proof is very important and main, as according to Article 6 Paragraph (2) KUHAP.

In the verdict: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr, it cannot be proven that the defendant committed the criminal act that he was accused of.

6. VERDICT

The Court's decision is regulated in Article 1 number 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the decision: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr, the defendant is sentenced to a criminal sentence of 8 months minus the period of detention and arrest. Based on this decision, the charges of obscuur libel . 

So that in this case the judge must give a verdict stating, "The indictment is null and void because it does not comply with Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code and because the criminal elements are not fully fulfilled, it cannot be said that the defendant committed a criminal act as charged by the Public Prosecutor Likewise regarding Article 156 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding an authorized court, the judge must release the defendant from all charges as the first and second indictments have not been proven in order to guarantee legal certainty and provide a sense of justice for the accused and provide rehabilitation to the defendant's good name. the consequences of these provisions. "

In the formulation of the indictment, the prosecutor as the public prosecutor should be more thorough, careful, and clear because the indictment is the crown of the public prosecutor to argue the criminal act committed by the defendant. As actory in cumbit probation that who is arguing, he is the one who must be obliged to prove it. 

Therefore, the public prosecutor is expected to be ready with evidence to support his indictment so that the charges are based on facts that can be presented at trial. law, it is necessary to think progressively in hearing and deciding cases, where judges are also considered to know all the laws so that the court should not refuse to examine and try cases (Ius Curia Novit / Curia Novit Jus). 

Judges must also listen to both parties (Audi Et Alteram Partem) So that the judge in giving a decision a the bag of evidence that can give him confidence does not only see the sense of justice for the victim, but also whether the crime also provides a sense of justice for the defendant. Therefore, it is hoped that the judges will judge and more carefully, thoroughly, and wisely. The existence of legal certainty, justice and equality before the law is sought to be realized.