Analisis Yuridis Putusan Hakim Tentang Bebasnya Terdakwa Dari Semua Dakwaan Penuntut Umum Dalam Tindak Pidana Narkotika (Putusan Mahkamah Agung No 261/pid.sus/2015/PN.KBJ)j)
The principle of legality is the protection of the citizens' rights from the arbitrariness of any authorities in addition to the Government's authority to impose criminal penalties. On the other hand, the principle of presumption of innocence is also the protection of citizens against defendants who have charged them. The defendant must be brought before the court with an indictment prepared in such a way according to the actions committed by the defendant in accordance with the article indicted. In principle, the essence of the acquittal occurs because the defendant is declared not legally and convincingly guilty of committing a criminal act as indicted by the Public Prosecutor in his indictment. Against the verdict of acquittal by the judge at the first level, legal remedies by the Public Prosecutor can be filed by submitting a cassation to the Supreme Court with the following reasons: a. whether it is true that legal regulation is not applied or is not applied properly; b. whether it is true that the trial method is not carried out according to the provisions of the law; c. whether the court has exceeded the limits of its authority. There were facts found at the trial, namely from the statements of witnesses who were friends of the Defendant who were arrested by the police, who explained that when the Defendant's friends bought the narcotics, the Defendant did not know about it. Likewise, when the Defendant's friends were consuming the narcotics, the Defendant was sleeping in the car, and the Defendant did not know what the Defendant's friends were doing. From the witness's testimony, a police member who participated in the Defendant's arrest, he explained that when he arrested the Defendant and his friends, the Defendant was sleeping in the car. The Defendant only woke up after the witness awakened the Defendant. The statements of these witnesses constituted the basis for the judge's consideration which stated that all elements of the articles indicted by the public prosecutor were not proven, and the Defendant was acquitted of all charges by the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, at the cassation level, the Supreme Court decided that the Public Prosecutor could not prove that the Judex Facti decision had complied with the provisions of Article 253 Paragraph (1) Letter a, b or c of Law Number 8 of 1981 and Judex Facti (first instance judge) did not conflict with laws and regulations, which still acquit the Defendant.
- UT-Faculty of Law