07 August 2016

Case Summary Oecusse District Court May 2016



Image belongs to Warren L. Wright
ETLJB7 July 2016  Source: East Timor Judicial System Monitoring Program Press Release Case Summary Oecusse District Court May 2016 Summary of the trial process at the Oecusse District Court

1.   Total cases observed by JSMP: 14
1.   Total number of ongoing cases based on JSMP monitoring: 0


1.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                                   : 97/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges             : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Ricardo Leite Godinho
Public Defender                       : Afonso Gomes Fatima 
Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 1 year in prison, suspended for 2 years.


On 4 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity involving the defendant JPR who allegedly committed the crime against his son (DdR) in Oecusse District.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 10 January 2016 at approximately 7pm, the defendant punched the victim once on his right arm and once on the right side of his head, slapped the victim once on his right cheek and left cheek, and choked the victim when he tried to flee. The defendant punched the victim because he suspected that the victim had lied to the defendant by saying that his parents in law would expel them from the house and tell them to go and live somewhere else. These actions caused the victim to lose consciousness and fall to the ground and suffer pain to his right arm, head and neck.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence.


During the trial, the defendant admitted some of the facts in that he did slap the victim twice, however on his shoulder and right cheek. In relation to the alleged punches to the head and arm and choking, the defendant denied these allegations. The defendant also said that previously he committed a crime against his wife in 2013 and was fined $30. Meanwhile, the victim corroborated the facts set out in the indictment of the Prosecutor.


The witness MV, who is the wife of the defendant, chose to remain silent because the defendant is her husband and the victim is her oldest son.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose a punishment of 6 months in prison, suspended for 1 year, because the defendant was guilty of committing the crime against the victim, even though the defendant only admitted some of the facts.


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to impose a fair and balanced penalty because the defendant cooperated with the court, admitted that previously he had committed another crime against his wife, and was appearing before the court for the second time. In addition, the defendant also testified that they have 5 children including the victim and the defendant is the breadwinner of the family. 


After evaluating all of the facts, the court concluded this case and sentenced the defendant to 1 year in prison, suspended for 2 years.


2.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
 

Case No                                   : 105/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Ricardo Leite Godinho
Public Defender                       : Calisto Tout
Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended for 1 year.


On 5 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant CN who allegedly committed the offence against his wife.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 10 February 2016 at approximately 12.00pm the defendant struck the victim once in the head with a piece of wood. Before the incident occurred, the defendant and the victim argued about their pig, which had gotten out of its pen. These actions caused the victim to suffer pain and swelling to her head. 


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


During the trial, the defendant admitted all of the facts and testified that he regretted his actions.


In addition, the victim also corroborated the charges of the Public Prosecutor and testified that the defendant always threatened her and punched her if she did not do what he wanted. The victim added that she felt afraid and so she didn't want to live together with the defendant anymore and she went back to her parents because her parents could protect her.


In his final recommendations, the Public Prosecutor considered that all of the facts had been proven in accordance with the confession of the defendant and confirmation from the victim herself. Therefore, he requested for the court to hand down a prison sentence of 6 months in prison, suspended for 1 year.


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to impose an appropriate sentence against the defendant because the defendant admitted all of the facts and regretted his actions and promised not to commit such acts against the victim in the future.


After evaluating the aforementioned facts, the court concluded the matter and accepted the final recommendation of the Public Prosecutor and sentenced the defendant to 6 months in prison, suspended for 1 year.


 3.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                                   : 107/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender                       : Calisto Tout & Daniel Elu (trainee private lawyers)
Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 1 year in prison, suspended for 1 year.


On 6 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant AL who allegedly committed the offence against his wife in Oecusse District.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 31 December 2015 at approximately 1pm the defendant threw some boiled corn on his plate at the victim's face, punched her left cheek once and punched her right cheek twice and choked the victim. These acts caused the victim to suffer pain to her cheek and neck.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence.


During the trial, the defendant admitted all of the facts and testified that he regretted his actions. The defendant also promised not to reoffend in the future against his wife or anyone else. The defendant also testified that this was the first time he struck the victim and the first time he had been brought before the court. The defendant testified that they have 2 children and he doesn't have a monthly income. 


On the other hand, the victim testified that she forgave the defendant because the defendant apologized one day after the incident.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to apply a fair and appropriate penalty against the defendant pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code that carries a sentence of at least 30 days and a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison or a fine.


The Public Defender asked the court to hand down a fair punishment in accordance with the actions of the defendant because he confessed and expressed regret for his actions.


After evaluating all of the facts, the court concluded this case and sentenced the defendant to 1 year in prison, suspended for 1 year.


4.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence

Case No                                   : 109/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Ricardo Leite Godinho
Public Defenders                     : Calisto Tout & Daniel Elu

Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 9 months in prison, suspended for 1 year.

On 6 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant DM who allegedly committed the offence against his wife FF in Oecusse District.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 31 October 2015 at approximately 8am the defendant struck the victim on her right shoulder with a small chair and struck the victim on her left arm with a piece of wood and once on her head. These acts caused the victim to suffer pain to her shoulder, arm and head. 


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


During the trial, the defendant admitted all of the facts and testified that he regretted his actions. The defendant promised not to repeat these acts in the future against his wife or another person and testified that this was the first time he had struck the victim and been brought before the court. The defendant testified that they have 5 children and don't have any monthly income. Meanwhile the victim corroborated the charges of the Public Prosecutor and testified that she forgave the defendant because after one week and two days the defendant apologized to the victim.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose a penalty of 1 year in prison suspended for 1 year because the Public Prosecutor considered the prevalence of domestic violence in Oecusse. The Public Prosecutor recommended this penalty to educate the defendant so he does not repeat his actions in the future. 


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to issue a fair punishment in accordance with the guilt of the defendant and also considering his responsibility to take care of his wife and children.


Based on the aforementioned facts, the court concluded the matter and sentenced the defendant to 9 months in prison, suspended for 1 year.


5.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                                   : 111/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender                       : Calisto Tout, Dr. Antonio S. (trainee private lawyers)
Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, suspended for 2 years.


On 9 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence involving the defendant AB who allegedly committed the offence against his wife in Oecusse District.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 1 February 2016, at approximately 7pm, the defendant returned from the market and was drunk and did not want the victim to admonish him. The defendant struck the victim on the left side of her neck and head with a hammer. The actions of the defendant caused the victim to suffer pain and an injury to her head and bleeding. The case file included a medical report from the Oecusse Referral Hospital and photos from the Oecusse District VPU-PNTL.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


During the trial the defendant admitted the facts charged against him and testified that he regretted his actions. The defendant also promised not to commit such crimes against his wife or anyone else in the future. The defendant testified that after only one day the defendant apologized and the victim forgave him. The defendant testified that they have three children and this was the first time he had struck the victim and faced the court.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to apply a fair and appropriate penalty against the defendant pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code that carries a sentence of at least 30 days and a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison or a fine.


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to apply a balanced and fair penalty against the defendant because the defendant admitted his actions, apologized to the victim, has three 3 children and this was the first time he had struck the victim and faced the court. 


After evaluating all of the facts, the court concluded this case and sentenced the defendant to 1 year and six months in prison, suspended for 2 years.


 6.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                                   : 112/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of Judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Mateus Nessi
Public Defenders                     : Marcelino Coro & Antonio Sombai
Type of decision                      : Sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, suspended for 2 years.


On 9 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant DQ who allegedly committed the offence against his wife.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 5 October 2015, at approximately 8 am, the defendant and the victim argued because the defendant suspected the victim of having a relationship with another man. The defendant choked the victim, kicked her twice on her right thigh, scratched her mouth, pulled her hair and slammed her to the ground, kicked her on the back of her neck and punched her once in the head. The defendant again took a piece of wood and struck the victim twice on her right leg and yanked at her sarong causing it to fall off. These acts caused the victim to suffer pain and embarrassment when her sarong was yanked off. 


The facts in this case were supported by a medical report from the hospital and photos from the Oecusse District VPU-PNTL.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence.


During the trial the defendant admitted all of the facts, expressed his regret and promised not to repeat his actions against his wife in the future. The defendant testified that they have 4 children and a limited income of between US$5 – US$10 per month. The defendant and the victim have reconciled and are living together as husband and wife.  The defendant also testified that this was the first time he had committed a crime and the first time he had been brought before the court. 


Because the defendant admitted the facts set out in the indictment, the court decided not to hear the testimony of the victim and the witness and proceeded to the final recommendations.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to apply a penalty pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code and the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to consider and examine the criminal offence committed by the defendant and impose a lenient penalty because the defendant and his wife have reconciled, they have four children and until now they are still living together as husband and wife.


After examining the entire process, the court settled the matter and sentenced the defendant to 1 year 6 months in prison suspended for 2 years because the defendant was found guilty of committing the crime against his wife.


7.   Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence

Case No                         : 80/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges   : Single
Judge                             : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor           : Mateus Nessi
Public Defenders            : Marcelino Coro & Antonio Sombai
Type of decision            : Sentenced to 1 year in prison


On 10 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of property damage involving the defendant GSN who allegedly committed the offence against his father in law ZB and a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence against his wife JT and his child FSN.


Prior to the trial, the court attempted conciliation in a case of property damage between the defendant GSN and his father in law ZB. During this attempted conciliation the victim wanted to withdraw the case because the defendant regretted his actions and apologized to her.


Previously, the Public Prosecutor alleged that on 05 December 2014, at approximately 10.00pm, the defendant was drunk when he returned from Naktuka and smashed a saucepan and slashed approximately 4 meters of the wall of the house.

The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 258 of the Penal Code on property damage. 


In his final recommendations, the Public Prosecutor and Public Defender agreed with the amicable settlement between the two parties and requested for the court to validate the withdrawal of this case.


Based on the agreement between the parties and the victim’s request to withdraw the case, the court decided to validate this settlement.


After deciding on this conciliation and validating the agreement between the parties, the court continued with the trial against the defendant GSN because of the crime he committed against his wife. 


The Public Prosecutor alleged that the defendant twice slapped the left and right cheeks of the victim and punched the victim once in her forehead. The defendant also slapped their child once on the back. These actions caused his wife and child to feel afraid and the victims suffered pain to her cheek, forehead and back.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


During the trial, the defendant only admitted some of the alleged facts that he had committed violence against his wife. The defendant testified that he regretted his actions because he should protect his wife but he was hostile to his own family.


In relation to the accusation that the defendant also slapped his child once on the back, the defendant testified that he has forgotten and denied committing the aforementioned acts against his child. The defendant told the court that prior to this, on a date unknown, the defendant was fined $100 by the court for committing violence against his wife.


Because the victim JT has passed away, the court was not able to hear her testimony, however the court proceeded to hear the testimony from the witness FB who is an in law of the defendant. The witness stated that at that time he did not see the defendant strike his wife and child however the witness saw the defendant smash a saucepan and slash approximately 3 meters of a wall in the house.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose an effective jail sentence against the defendant because he was found guilty of committing the crimes against his wife. The Public Prosecutor was also convinced that the defendant struck his child.


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to impose a fair and lenient penalty in accordance with the actions of the defendant. The Public Defender also requested for the court to consider all of the circumstances because the defendant is the breadwinner of the family, and must provide for and look after his children.


After evaluating all of the facts, on 10 May 2016 the court concluded this case and sentenced the defendant to 1 year in prison.


 8.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                                   : 92/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender                       : Calisto Tout
Type of decision                      : Ordered to pay a fine of $ 45 


On 10 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence involving the defendant SJXG who allegedly committed the offence against his child (SSGC), aged three, in Oecusse District.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 15 December 2015, at approximately 7am, the defendant told the victim to get a chair so he could sit down, but the victim did not want to, so the defendant took a piece of wood and struck the child 3 times in the stomach which caused the victim to suffer pain.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence.


During the trial the defendant admitted all of the alleged facts and regretted his actions and has reconciled with his child.


In his final recommendations, the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose a penalty proportional to the actions of the defendant educate the defendant so he will not commit the same crime against his child in the future. Meanwhile the Public Defender requested for the court to issue an admonishment against the defendant because he is the breadwinner and needs to provide for his three children. 


After evaluating all of the facts, the court settled the matter and ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $45 in daily instalments of 50 cents for 90 days.


 9.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                         : 92/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges   : Single
Judge                             : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor           : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender             : Calisto Tout
Type of decision            : Acquitted


On 10 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant AdC who allegedly committed the offence against his wife.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 15 December 2015 at approximately 9am the defendant punched the victim above her right eye, which caused the victim to suffer pain and swelling. 


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence.


During the trial, the defendant admitted some of the facts charged against him and that he only pushed the victim and did not hit her, however the defendant testified that he regretted his actions. The defendant testified that he pushed the victim because he did not want the victim to punch their children.


Meanwhile, the victim also confirmed that at that time the defendant only pushed her. This conflicted with the original testimony that she provided to the Public Prosecutor that the defendant punched her once above her right eye and caused pain and swelling.
 

In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to hand down an appropriate penalty against the defendant. The Public Prosecutor stated that previously on March 2015 the defendant was found guilty of committing offences against his wife and was sentenced to 9 month’s jail, suspended for 2 years, and now he is trying to change the information and say that he has not committed violence against his wife. The Public Prosecutor understands that the victim tried to protect the defendant by making statements that contradicted her previous testimony.


Meanwhile the Public Defender requested for the court to issue an admonishment against the defendant because it had been proven that the defendant had only pushed the victim and this was corroborated by the victim herself. Therefore, he requested for the court to dismiss the charges of the Public Prosecutor. The Public Defender also testified that the defendant is the breadwinner for his wife and three children. Therefore, this needed to be taken into consideration when determining a penalty proportional to the actions of the defendant. 


After evaluating all of the facts, the court concluded the matter and decided to acquit the defendant from the charges of the Public Prosecutor because there was not enough evidence about the defendant striking the victim, because the victim herself said that the defendant only pushed her and there was no medical report to corroborate the charges of the Public Prosecutor.


10.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence
Case No                         : 123/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges   : Single
Judge                             : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor           : Ricardo Leite Godinho
Public Defenders            : Calisto Tout & Antonio Sombai
Type of decision            : Acquitted


On 16 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence, involving the defendant LM who allegedly committed the offence against his wife. 


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 17 February 2016 at approximately 6pm the defendant punched the victim once above her right eye, once in the head, once in the forehead, which caused the victim to suffer pain and swelling. 


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 


During the trial the defendant denied all of the facts charged against him. The defendant stated that he did not punch the victim but he only struck the wall of the house with a piece of wood. Currently the defendant and the victim have not yet reconciled because the victim did not want to live together with the defendant. The defendant testified that he was a first time offender, and he also said they have three children and he doesn't have a monthly income.


Meanwhile, the victim corroborated the charges of the Public Prosecutor and testified that her eye was swollen for 1 week because she was punched by the defendant. The victim also stated that the defendant always punched her when something was wrong or if they had a difference of opinion.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose a suspended sentence against the defendant because he was found guilty of committing the crimes against his wife. Meanwhile, the Public Defender said that there was no proof and no medical report. Therefore the court acquitted the defendant.


After evaluating the entire case, the court concluded the matter and accepted the recommendation of the Public Defender to acquit the defendant, because the court could not find sufficient evidence about the criminal offence allegedly committed by the defendant. Also there was no medical report to corroborate the testimony of the victim because the defendant testified that he did not punch the victim but only struck the wall of their house with a piece of wood.


 11.       Crime of theft



Case No                         : 114/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges   : Single
Judge                             : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor           : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender             : Marcelino Coro
Type of decision            : Acquitted


On 17 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of theft after the court inspected the scene of the crime in a case involving the defendant AA and the victim SO in Oecusse District.


Previously, the Public Prosecutor alleged that on an unspecified date in July 2015, at 6pm, the defendant took a male pig from the victim's pigpen without the victim's permission and took it to his own pigpen. The victim only realized what had happened two months later when he went looking for his missing pig and found it in the pigpen of the defendant.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 251 of the Penal Code on theft.


During a hearing to attempt conciliation between the parties no agreement was reached, so the court continued with a trial.


During the trial the defendant denied all of the facts charged against him and said that it was his pig, and not the victim's. The defendant stated that he had looked after the pig for 5 years and it got out of his pigpen on 5 September 2015. The defendant stated that he could recognize his pig because there was a cut mark on its left ear.


Meanwhile, the victim corroborated the charge of the Public Prosecutor that the defendant had stolen the pig. The pig was black and has white hair on its legs. In addition, the left ear of the pig had a cut mark and a scar on its right cheek. The victim stated that he only found it after two months of searching and found it in the pigpen of the defendant. 


Because the testimony of the defendant and the victim contradicted each other, the court decided to inspect the scene of the crime and found that there was insufficient evidence because there was a difference of opinion about the marks on the skin of the pig. Therefore, the court decided to proceed to the final recommendations. 


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose a fair penalty pursuant to Article 251 of the Penal Code on theft. 


Meanwhile the Public Defender requested for the court to acquit the defendant because there was insufficient evidence and it could not be proven that the pig belonged to the victim.


After evaluating all of the facts, the court decided the matter and agreed with the recommendation of the Public Defender and decided to acquit the defendant from all of the charges relating to the aforementioned criminal act.


 12.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity characterized as domestic violence 
Case No                         : 110/krime.S/2016/TDO
Composition of judges   : Single
Judge                             : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor           : Mateus Nessi
Public Defenders            : Calisto Tout & Antonio Sombai
Type of decision            : Sentenced to 6 months in prison


On 19 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity involving the defendant JA who allegedly committed the offence against his wife.


The Public Prosecutor alleged that on 12 October 2014 at approximately 12.00 midnight, the defendant was drunk and took his motorcycle and chased the victim and struck her on the side causing her to fall to the ground. The actions of the defendant caused the victim to suffer pain to her side and she suffered an injury above her right eye, an injury to her right shoulder and right thigh. The case file included a medical report from the hospital and photos from the Oecusse District VPU-PNTL.


The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity, as well as Articles 2, 3 and 35 (b) of the Law Against Domestic Violence. 

 During the trial the defendant admitted some of the facts charged against him. The defendant testified that the defendant was on his motorcycle on the main road and was crossing to the side of the road and the victim tried to stop the motorcycle but it kept going forward and this caused the victim to fall to the ground. The defendant testified that he then stopped the motorcycle and picked up the victim.


However, the defendant added that he did not see the victim's injuries because at that moment the brothers of the victim, JCT and MTS, heard what had happened and came to the scene and beat the defendant. Therefore, the defendant tried to flee and get away from the brothers of the victim who were angry and were punching him.


Meanwhile, the victim corroborated the charges of the Public Prosecutor that the defendant had committed physical violence against her and caused her to suffer pain to her side, bleeding from above her right eye, and injury to her shoulder and her right thigh.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to hand down an effective prison sentence against the defendant to educate him not to repeat his actions in the future. 


Meanwhile the Public Defender requested for the court to acquit the defendant because there were doubts about the evidence presented by the victim and if the court felt otherwise, then he requested for the court to impose a fair and lenient penalty against the defendant.


After evaluating all of the facts the court concluded this case and sentenced the defendant to 6 months in prison. The court found the defendant guilty of striking his wife with the motorcycle in accordance with the medical report from the hospital and the victim suffered an injury and pain to her side and fell to the ground.


 13.      Crime of simple offences against physical integrity
Case No                                   : 124/krime.S/2016/TDO        
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Mateus Nessi
Public Defender                       : Marcelino Coro
Type of decision                      : Acquitted


On 23 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court read out its decision in a case of simple offences against physical integrity involving the defendants LC and FC who allegedly committed the offence against their older sister (TC).


Previously, the Public Prosecutor alleged that on 03 March 2016 at approximately 06.30 am, the defendant FC pulled the hair of the victim from behind and slammed her to the ground. After that, the two defendants scratched the face and mouth of the victim. This case allegedly occurred because the victim did not accept the defendants selling her land surreptitiously. As a result the victim suffered pain to her mouth and swelling.


The Public Prosecutor charged the two defendants for violating Article 145 of the Penal Code regarding simple offences against physical integrity. 


During the trial the defendant LC testified that she did not scratch the mouth and face of the victim, and previously the victim bit the finger of the defendant FC. Nevertheless, the defendant LC testified that she has not reconciled with the victim because the victim did not want to forgive her. The defendant also testified that she was a first time offender and this was her first appearance in court. 


In addition the defendant FC also testified that he did not scratch the face and mouth of the victim. However the defendant stated that at that time they were both grappling with each other and in the end they both fell to the ground. The defendant testified that this was the first time she had appeared in court and had tried to reconcile with the victim however the victim refused. In addition, the victim maintained the charges of the Public Prosecutor.


Because the defendants provided differing testimony, the court wanted to hear testimony from the witness. The witness, MO, who is the husband of the defendant LC, testified that at that time he did not see the victim and the defendant fighting because he was exercising on the main road. 


Meanwhile, the witness BC who is the younger brother of the defendants and the victim used his right to remain silent and did not want to speak.


In his final recommendations the Public Prosecutor requested for the court to impose an appropriate penalty against the two defendants pursuant to Article 145 of the Penal Code because the two defendants tried to change the information or were lying.  


Meanwhile, the Public Defender requested for the court to acquit the two defendants because there were doubts against their testimony, however if the court decides otherwise, then the Public Defender recommended for the court to issue an admonishment.


After evaluating all of the facts, the court concluded this process and decided to acquit the two defendants. The court considered that there was doubt about the testimony of the victim and there was insufficient evidence from witnesses and no medical report to strengthen the testimony of the victim and to convict the defendants.


14.       Crime of failure to fulfil obligation to provide alimony
Case No                                   : 0171/14.PDOEC/TDO
Composition of judges            : Single
Judge                                       : João Ribeiro
Public Prosecutor                    : Ricardo Leite Godinho
Public Defender                       : Afonso Gomes Fatima and Antonio Sombai
Type of decision                      : Validated a request to withdraw the case 


On 24 May 2016 the Oecusse District Court attempted conciliation in a case of failure to fulfil an obligation to provide alimony involving the defendant OO and his wife AC and their two children (MO and JO).


In this hearing to attempt conciliation the victim wanted to withdraw the case, however on the condition that the defendant has to put $50 per month into her Mandiri Bank account to provide for their children and the defendant agreed to the request of the victim.


Previously, the Public Prosecutor alleged that from 2013 the defendant had failed to fulfil his obligation to provide alimony, and the defendant has not provided for his wife and two children. These acts disadvantaged the victim and her two children.

The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant for violating Article 225 of the Penal Code on the crime of failure to provide alimony.


In their final recommendations, the Public Prosecutor and Public Defender agreed with the amicable settlement between the two parties and requested for the court to validate this settlement.


Based on the agreement between the parties and the victim’s request to withdraw the case, the court decided to validate the amicable settlement made by the parties.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...