Jakarta – The cassation ruling document for Gregorius Ronald Tannur is now accessible to the public. There are several new things that have been revealed from that cassation ruling.
For your information, Ronald Tannur was initially acquitted by the panel of judges at the Surabaya District Court in the case of Dini Sera Afrianti’s death. The prosecutor then filed a cassation to the Supreme Court. (MA).
The Supreme Court then annulled the acquittal and sentenced Ronald Tannur to 5 years in prison. It turns out that the chairman of the cassation panel, Soesilo, had a different opinion or dissenting opinion (DO) which considered Ronald Tannur’s acquittal to be correct.
This was known from the complete copy of the cassation decision Ronald Tannur number 1466 K/Pid/2024 uploaded by the Supreme Court to its website on Monday (12/9/2024).
“Considering that there has been a dissenting opinion in the deliberation of the Judges’ Council and despite earnest efforts, consensus could not be reached, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 Paragraph (3) of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court, the dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court Justices is Soesilo,” thus it is written in the decision copy seen by detikcom, Tuesday (10/12/2024).
In his opinion, Soesilo stated that the prosecutor’s cassation essentially claimed that the Surabaya District Court judges did not apply the law properly. Soesilo considers that reason to be unjustifiable because the judges of the Surabaya District Court who adjudicated Ronald Tannur, namely Erintuah Damanik, Mangapul, and Heru Hanindyo, did not err in applying the law and adjudicating Ronald Tannur according to criminal procedural law.
“That the judgment of the judex facti has been considered accurately and correctly in accordance with the relevant legal facts as revealed in the trial based on valid evidence in accordance with the provisions of the law,” said Soesilo.
He also brought up the incident that occurred at Lenmarc Surabaya, including the CCTV footage in the Lenmarc parking lot. He said that Dini Sera and Ronald Tannur got into an argument that ended with Dini slapping Ronald, and Ronald retaliating by pushing Dini Sera.
Soesilo also said that the CCTV footage showed the car moving to the right while Dini Sera’s body was on the left side of the car. He mentioned that Dini Sera was still alive when she arrived at the apartment and was then taken to the hospital. Dini Sera was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
He also mentioned that there was an autopsy result showing that Dini Sera died due to multiple lacerations on the liver caused by blunt force trauma, resulting in bleeding, as well as additional examinations that found alcohol in the stomach and blood, dilation of blood vessels in the cerebrum, liver, right and left kidneys, and bleeding in the areas of gas exchange in the lower right lung and upper left lung. Soesilo said that the autopsy results did not clearly indicate Ronald Tannur as the perpetrator who caused Dini Sera’s death.
“Although there is a visum et repertum explaining the death of Dini Sera Afrianti, the results of the visum et repertum do not automatically state that the Defendant is the perpetrator of the act against Dini Sera Afrianti, let alone the allegation that the Defendant ran over Dini Sera Afrianti’s body as the cause of her death, because there is no evidence that can prove that allegation,” he said.
He also considered the testimonies of the witnesses. On that basis, Soesilo stated that the acquittal by the Surabaya District Court judge of Ronald Tannur was correct.
“Furthermore, the construction of facts presented in the Prosecutor’s indictment is linked with the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the Defendant did not have the mens rea to commit the crime as charged by the Prosecutor, thus the judex facti’s decision to acquit the Defendant from the Prosecutor’s charges is correct,” he said.
Nevertheless, two other judges found Ronald Tannur guilty. The aggravating factors are that the defendant attempted to evade responsibility even though the victim was the defendant’s girlfriend, who should have been protected by the defendant, and did not acknowledge his actions, complicating the trial. A mitigating factor is that the defendant has never been convicted before.
“Stating that the Defendant Gregorius Ronald Tannur, son of Edward Tannur, has been legally and convincingly proven guilty of the crime of ‘assault resulting in death’.” Imposing a sentence on the Defendant therefore with a prison term of 5 years,” said the judge.
Soesilo, who gave a different opinion, had apparently met with one of the suspects in the alleged bribery case of Ronald Tannur’s acquittal, namely Zarof Ricar. However, the Supreme Court stated that there was no ethical violation committed by the cassation court judges.
Leave a Reply