Abstract
The proof of testmonium de auditu cannot be used in criminal cases but the constitutional court's decision number 65/PUU-VIII/2010 gives the position of witness de auditu which creates a new dilemma in criminal trials. the method used is normative with a legal approach and a conceptual approach. The results showed that testmonium de auditu statement actually did not have the same evidentiary power as a factual witness, but because of the constitutional court decision that acknowledged the evidence of testmonium de auditu witness, the statement could be considered which in this case can be used as evidence in criminal trial accordance with what is in the criminal procedure code. The importance of witnesses does not lie in their own statements, but in the relevance of their statements to criminal cases that are being processed so that judges in assessing a criminal case do not rely solely on belief but must be based on the search for material truth in accordance with legal objectives in KUHAP. Keywords: Evidence, Testimonium De Auditu, Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
