Concerning Proof

The role of proof in legal proceedings is very important. According to Prof. Eddy Hiariej, the process of proving and proving contains the intent and effort to state the truth of an event so that it can be accepted rationally regarding the truth of the event. Before responding to the police's proof mechanism regarding Pegi Setiawan's involvement, the author is interested in highlighting a video circulating on various media platforms regarding Vina's friend named Linda who experienced possession by the spirit of the late Vina. This incident is considered to have uncovered the real cause of Vina and Eky's deaths, until Linda underwent examination at the Cirebon Police Station.

The question is whether the testimony of a person who is unconscious or in a trance has probative value? It needs to be emphasized that the information that can be recognized in the criminal proof system is only the testimony of witnesses, expert testimony and the testimony of the defendant as the structure of evidence based on Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if Linda's statement when possessed by Vina's spirit is used as witness testimony, it will raise the question of whether Linda's statement meets the requirements of testimony?

Witness in the terminology of Article 1 number 26 of the Criminal Procedure Code is “a person who provides information for the benefit of investigation, prosecution and trial regarding a criminal case that he hears himself, sees himself and experiences himself”.

Meanwhile, witness testimony in Article 1 number 27 of the Criminal Procedure Code is “one of the pieces of evidence in a criminal case in the form of information from a witness regarding a criminal event that he heard himself, saw himself and experienced himself by mentioning the reasons for his knowledge”. However, the construction of the concept of testimony has undergone changes since the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010 which provides an extension that “a witness does not lie in whether he saw, heard, or experienced a criminal event himself, but rather in the relevance of his testimony to the criminal case being processed”.

Thus, Linda's statement has probative value and meets the requirements of testimony if the information provided has relevance to the deaths of Vina and Eky. The relevance referred to here is the relationship between the substance of the information provided by Linda in a conscious and logical state (not in a trance/possession) based on the truth of the event.

The most highlighted thing next is the determination of Pegi Setiawan as a suspect in the Vina Cirebon Case. Not a few people think that the police's efforts are a practice of wrongful arrest, even Pegi is considered a scapegoat sacrificed to cover up the involvement of children of high-ranking officials/state officials. These views certainly need to be given a comprehensive understanding considering that this is related to the image of the police in the eyes of Indonesian society.

A person can be named as a suspect based on initial evidence (Article 1 number 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Based on Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014, initial evidence must be based on a minimum of 2 pieces of evidence contained in Article 184 of Law No. 8/1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. Apart from this obligation, the determination of a suspect based on 2 pieces of evidence must also be preceded by an examination of the prospective suspect as considered in Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014.

Pegi Setawan was named as a suspect because sufficient initial evidence was found, namely 2 pieces of evidence. The first evidence, witness testimony in court decision Number: 4/Pid.B/2017/PN Cbn. The second evidence, letters such as STNK, Birth Certificate, Report Card, Diploma, Family Card, Population Biodata, photo, KIP, KTP, HP, as circumstantial evidence. After being named as a suspect, on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, the police made an effort to arrest Pegi in Bandung, West Java. Interestingly, the process of determining him as a suspect and arresting Pegi was not preceded by an examination of the prospective suspect. On the other hand, the police removed the 2 names Andi and Deni from the DPO because of incorrect naming and when investigated by the police, 2 sufficient initial evidence against Andi and Deni were not found.

“Challenge” Pretrial

The public's perception of the police wrongly arresting Pegi is wrong. What should be highlighted is the police's efforts in determining Pegi Setiawan as a suspect to making an arrest without examining the prospective suspect. This examination can be carried out by first asking for information about the involvement and truth of the events that occurred. Therefore, the legal remedy that can be taken is only through the pretrial mechanism, in order to prevent Adfire Prejudice (unreasonable presumption) from the police.