Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Kepemilikan Bangunan Ilegal yang Mengakibatkan Kerugian dari Perspektif Ajaran Kausalitas (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 1833/Pid.B/2021/PN Lbp dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1010 K/Pid/2022)

Abstract

The crime that is currently rampant is the crime of illegal building ownership that causes losses. The proof of the crime of illegal building ownership that causes loss requires the application of the doctrine of causality, which aims to find answers to legal problems or events by searching for and determining the existence or non-existence of a causal relationship between the act and the resulting consequence. However, in practice, legal practitioners, especially judges, often do not apply the doctrine of causality in decision-making. This thesis contains several problem formulations as follows: 1) How is the relationship between the proof of criminal elements and the form of the judge's decision according to Indonesian criminal procedural law?; 2) What is the doctrine of causality in criminal law?; 3) How do judges consider the proof of the crime of illegal building ownership that causes loss from the perspective of the doctrine of causality in the decision of the District Court Number 1833/Pid.B/2021/PN Lbp and the Supreme Court Decision Number 1010 K/Pid/2022? The research method used by the author in this study is normative juridical legal research, which involves using secondary data that consists of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The proof of criminal elements must be based on existing evidence and legal facts to serve as a guideline for the Panel of Judges in delivering a verdict to the defendant, which can be a sentence, acquittal, or release. The doctrine of causality in criminal law is used to determine which of a series of actions is considered the cause of the emergence of the prohibited consequence, and to determine whether the defendant's actions constitute a prohibited act punishable under applicable regulations. In the decision of the District Court Number 1833/Pid.B/2021/PN Lbp, the judge acquitted the defendant, and in the decision of the Supreme Court Number 1010 K/Pid/2022, the judge sentenced the defendant to 3 (three) months in prison. The difference in the verdicts was based on the differing considerations of the judges, where in the District Court, the elements charged by the Public Prosecutor were not proven, and to prove the allegations as stated by the prosecutor, the judge required testimony from a building expert witness. Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court, the judge stated that the elements of the public prosecutor's charges had been proven, without requiring proof of the connection between the illegal building and the losses caused by the illegal building. Which should have led the Supreme Court judges to uphold the decision of the first-instance judge.