Such as the confession of witnesses Jainuddin, Oktavianto and Wisnu Bagus as investigators from Polda Metro Jaya.

Jakarta, Posinternational.com

Lawyer OC Kaligis said that the evidence in the form of a bowl belonging to defendant Fernando Miguel Gama De Sousa, a foreign national (WNA) from Portugal, was used to cook for his friends during their holiday in Bali.

“This is based on information from Joao Martines Machado Dias De Sousa and Ines Teixeira Lacerda regarding the defendant’s belongings which were confiscated by investigators,” said OC Kaligis in Jakarta, Tuesday.

Kaligis said the defendant was a vegetarian (eats vegetables) and his friend wanted to try Fernando’s vegetarian dishes. This evidence confirms that the evidence confiscated by investigators from the defendant, who is his client.

Was never used for other purposes outside of cooking food.

However, the cooking utensils confiscated by investigators were four oval glass bowls, a white digital scale, a food press and a plastic roll.

Thus, it is proven that Fernando was charged in the a quo case based on irrelevant evidence so that there was legal reason for the judge to acquit the defendant at least from the prosecutor’s demands.

Evidence shows the condition of room 3361 Hotel Swiss-Belresort, Pecatu, Bali, which was occupied by the defendant when the arrest occurred and in the video there are differences in the room situation.

Such as the confession of witnesses Jainuddin, Oktavianto and Wisnu Bagus as investigators from Polda Metro Jaya.

The investigator, who was a witness only through the mirror in the room, handed a purple bag to the defendant Rui Pedro Azevedo Viana, meaning that the investigator’s witness did not see it directly.

According to him, in fact there is nothing in the a quo video that shows the defendant ever handed over any items to the defendant Rui Pedro Azevedo Viana.

Meanwhile, according to Article 185 paragraph 6 letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code, in assessing the truth of a witness’.

Statement the judge must seriously pay attention to the correspondence between the witness’ statement and other evidence.

Meanwhile, according to Article 185 paragraph 6 letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code, in assessing the truth of a witness’ statement the judge must seriously pay attention to the correspondence between the witness’ statement and other evidence.

He added that the jurisprudence regarding witness testimony is only based on the testimony of one person, so the witness’ statement must be excluded because it has no evidentiary value based on article 184 paragraph 1 of the Criminal.

Procedure Code in conjunction with article 185 paragraph 2 and article 185 paragraph 6 letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“Other evidence is that investigators said liquid cocaine contained in a shampoo bottle was destroyed before the trial was held in court,” he said.

Even though the evidence was not dangerous, why was it destroyed, especially since there was no official report or the time of destruction without the defendant witnessing it.

The trial in the case of possession of liquid cocaine was held at the Tangerang District Court, Banten by a judge chaired by M. Alfi Sahrin Usuf and prosecutor Raden Isjunianto with the next agenda being the reading of the charges.

**** (adi)

Related Posts