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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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
Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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 : SingleJudge
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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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 Composition of Judges : Single
Judge
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
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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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/TDOComposition of judges : Single
Judge
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/TDOComposition of judges : Single
Judge
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 : SingleJudge
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/TDOComposition of judges : Single
Judge
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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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 Composition of judges : Single
Judge
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:
Post a Comment