They only heard from the statements of other investigators. In the case file.
Tangerang, internasionalpos.com
Lawyer Fernando Miguel Gama De Sousa, a foreign citizen (WNA) from Portugal, accused in a drug case, namely Desyana and Ary Armon, presented expert witness DR Rico Pandeirot SH LLM at the Tangerang District Court, Banten.
Desyana’s lawyer from Prof. OC Kaligis’ office in Tangerang, Monday night (26/8/2014) said.
That his party presented witness DR Rico because he is an expert who is also a lecturer at Trisaksi University and a legal practitioner.
“The expert’s opinion needs to be heard by the panel of judges chaired by Alfi Sahrin Usuf so that the statement explains the witnesses and evidence, so that it is clear,” he said.
This is related to Polda Metro Jaya officers arresting Fernando at a villa in the Pecatu area.
Bali because the police accused him of carrying liquid crystal methamphetamine in a shampoo bottle.
However, investigators were also presented at the trial as witnesses and Customs and Excise officers at I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport.
Denpasar, Bali, even though there were irregularities because they did not know clearly and were only based on reports from investigator Jainuddin.
Investigators even destroyed the drug evidence and did not show it at trial.
Meanwhile, the prosecutor at the trial with the agenda of presenting expert witnesses refused to respond to DR Rico Pandeirot’s testimony.
Rico said that Article 194 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the submission of evidence can be carried out even though the decision does not yet have permanent legal force.
Including that the evidence can be presented to court at any time intact.
“This is to avoid tampering with evidence and for the sake of legal certainty and transparency it needs to be presented at trial,” said Rico.
Answering the lawyer’s question, regarding the witnesses presented by the prosecutor who were members of the police, that this was very vulnerable because it conflicted with interests.
Usually witnesses from the police were verbal witnesses (investigators).
Even so, Rico said that a witness’s statement as evidence is what the witness states in court in accordance with Article 185 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Namely that a witness’s statement in front of an investigator is neither a witness’s statement nor is it evidence . Meanwhile.
He said, witness statements in front of investigators are only a guide for the judge to examine the case at trial.
If the testimony differs at trial, the judge is obliged to ask questions seriously and record them in accordance with Article 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Rico added that in narcotics crimes, searches, confiscations and witnesses must be carried out carefully in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
Because this criminal act is the easiest to appear fabricated. In fact, the verbal statements of the witnesses were contradictory and they did not fully know about the search incident.
They only heard from the statements of other investigators. In the case file, the prosecutor presented three police officers, namely Jainuddin, Oktavianto and Vishnu Bagus.
Who stated that some of their statements did not match because they were only copied in full (copy paste).
**** (adi)
