Supreme Court Rejects Review Request of Convicted in Vina Cirebon Case, Application Considered Unfounded

Kapanlagi.com - The Supreme Court (MA) has just issued an important decision rejecting the request for a judicial review (PK) from eight convicts in the murder case of Vina Dewi Arsita and Muhammad Rizky (Eky) in Cirebon. In its ruling, the MA emphasizes that there was no error in the previous decision and that the new evidence presented does not meet the requirements according to Article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

This decision underscores the importance of PK applications that must be based on strong facts and evidence. Although the convicts' legal counsel attempted to present several pieces of evidence, including the results of conversation extractions and the retraction of key witness testimonies, the MA insists that these pieces of evidence do not qualify as novum.

This article will delve deeper into the reasons for the Supreme Court's rejection of the PK, the chronology of the PK application, and the responses from various parties regarding this sensational decision. Stay tuned for more information summarized by Liputan6 on Tuesday (17/12).

1. Rejection of the Convicts' Case Review for Vina Cirebon Held in Court, Monday (16/12)

Eight convicts in the murder case of Vina and Eky in Cirebon are currently fighting to prove themselves, with their requests for Case Review (PK) divided into two groups; two convicts submitted the first case, while five others submitted the second case.

Not to be left out, Saka Tatal, a juvenile convict who has been released, is also participating in this effort to clear his name from the dark stain.

In a press conference held on Monday (16/12), the spokesperson for the Supreme Court, Yanto, revealed that after deliberation, the decision made fundamentally rejected all the convicts' PK requests, a move that reinforces the legal firmness in this highly publicized case.

2. Judge's Consideration to Reject PK Request: No New Evidence According to Article 263 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code

The Spokesperson of the Supreme Court (MA), Yanto, revealed that the rejection of the request for Judicial Review (PK) is based on the fact that there is no error in the judges' decisions at all levels, both by the judex factie and judex juris. This indicates that the legal process carried out in the District Court up to the level of cassation has been conducted very well.

Furthermore, the MA assessed that the new evidence or novum presented by the convicts does not meet the criteria set forth in the Criminal Code (KUHP). Yanto emphasized, "The Panel of Judges rejected the PK application on the grounds of the absence of any oversight in the court and the new evidence presented does not meet the requirements, in accordance with Article 263 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP)."

3. Why is Novum Not Considered New Evidence?

In an effort to overturn the decision, the legal representatives of the convicts attempted to present new evidence that drew attention, such as the results of mobile phone conversation extractions, shocking confessions from key witnesses who retracted their testimonies, and allegations that the incident was actually an accident.

However, the panel of judges firmly assessed that all of this evidence does not meet the expected novum criteria, which must be new and significant enough to change the established decision.

4. Response of the Legal Counsel and Family of the Convict

The convict's legal counsel feels very disappointed after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that they consider a legal tragedy, believing that the evidence they presented should have been strong enough for a review.

Meanwhile, the convict's family cannot hide their deep sorrow, feeling that this decision shatters their hopes for justice. Nevertheless, the legal counsel is determined to continue seeking other legal avenues.

The Peradi team, which accompanies PK 7 of the convict in the Vina Cirebon case, Jutek Bongso, revealed that they have tried to present new evidence, although it has not yet been considered as novum by the panel.

"We have shown facts that have not been revealed, such as the results of the extraction from Widi's phone and the presence of an expert who stayed in Cirebon for two weeks to prove that there were conversations at the time alleged during the supposed murder. Two witnesses also stated that the incident was not murder, but rather an accident. Is that not novum? All of this we presented in the PK trial," they expressed passionately.

5. Implications of the Rejection of the Cassation in This Case

The Supreme Court emphasizes the clarity of the legal process with the rejection of the cassation request, indicating that all procedures have been carried out in accordance with existing regulations.

With this decision, the convicted individuals must continue to serve their sentences, including life imprisonment, in accordance with the verdict that has been previously established. Additionally, this ruling reminds that a cassation request must be accompanied by strong new evidence to prove that there was an error in the previous decision.

6. What are the reasons for the Supreme Court to reject the cassation of the convicted in the Vina Cirebon case?

The Assembly of Mandates rejected the cassation request because it was deemed that there was no error in the previous judge's decision, while the new evidence submitted also did not meet the established criteria.

7. What is novum in cassation?

Novum is a surprising new discovery, a fact that was previously undisclosed and has the potential to change the direction of a court decision that has become legally binding.

8. Who has filed a judicial review in Vina's case?

Eight convicted individuals involved in the tragic murder case of Vina, including a child named Saka Tatal, are now awaiting a legal decision that will determine their fate.

9. What are the legal steps after the judicial review is rejected?

After the rejection of the judicial review, there are still other options available, such as applying for clemency or amnesty. Moreover, if valid new evidence emerges, the possibility of filing a second judicial review remains wide open.

(kpl/srr)