Pada tahun 2014 terjadi tindak pidana pelecehan seksual bertempat di Jakarta International School (JIS) dimana pelakunya adalah salah satu guru di sekolah tersebut. Pelaku yakni Neil Bantleman alias Mr. B bekerja sebagai di Jakarta International School (JIS) sejak tahun 2013-2014. Pelaku diketahui telah melakukan pelecehan seksual kepada 3 (tiga) korban anak yang berusia 6-7 tahun. Pada Putusan Banding Majelis Hakim menyatakan bahwa Terdakwa Neil Bantleman alias Mr. B tidak terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana pencabulan dikarenakan keterangan ahli atau hasil visum et repertum milik korban dan terdakwa, kesaksian saksi testimonium de auditu yakni orang tua korban dinilai tidak memiliki nilai pembuktian di persidangan. Diketahui keterangan ahli berupa visum et repertum sudah termasuk dalam alat bukti yang sah berdasarkan KUHAP. Hal ini tercantum dalam Pasal 7, 184 Ayat (1), 187 huruf c, 120, 133,179 Ayat (1) KUHAP. Sedangkan saksi testimonium de auditu juga dikategorikan sebagai alat bukti saksi sebagaimana dalam Pasal 184 Ayat (1) KUHAP dikarenakan telah dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 65/PUU-VIII/2010 mengenai perluasan makna saksi. Maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa keterangan ahli maupun visum et repertum adalah sah sebagai alat bukti dipersidangan dan memiliki nilai pembuktian di persidangan, serta saksi testimonium de auditu merupakan alat bukti yang sah dan memiliki nilai pembuktian dalam persidangan. Mengingat kasus ini terjadi ditahun 2013-2014 dan melalui proses pengadilan sekitar tahun 2015, artinya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut sudah berlaku di tahun 2010. Majelis Hakim dalam hal ini telah salah menerapkan hukum pembuktian yang mana dinyatakan dalam pertimbangan hakim pada Putusan Banding. Kalimat kunci : visum et repertum, saksi testimonium de auditu, Putusan Banding

In 2014 a criminal act of sexual harassment took place at the Jakarta International School (JIS) where the perpetrator was one of the teachers at the school. The actor Neil Bantleman aka Mr. B worked as a Jakarta International School (JIS) since 2013-2014. The perpetrator is known to have sexually molested 3 (three) victims of children aged 6-7 years. In the Appeal Decision the Panel of Judges stated that Defendant Neil Bantleman alias Mr. B is not proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a criminal act of sexual abuse because of expert testimony or the results of the visum et repertum of the victim and defendant, the testimony of witnesses, testimonium de auditu, namely the victim's parents are considered to have no proof value in the trial. It is known that the expert statement in the form of visum et repertum is included in the legal evidence based on the Criminal Procedure Code. This is stated in Article 7, 184 Paragraph (1), 187 letters c, 120, 133,179 Paragraph (1) KUHAP. Whereas witness testimonium de auditu is also categorized as witness evidence as in Article 184 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65 / PUU-VIII / 2010 concerning the expansion of the meaning of witnesses. So it can be concluded that the expert statement as well as the visum et repertum is legal as evidence in the trial and has the evidentiary value in the trial, and the witness testimonium de auditu is a valid evidence and has a proof value in the trial. Considering that this case occurred in 2013-2014 and through a court process around 2015, it means that the Constitutional Court's Decision was effective in 2010. The Panel of Judges in this case has wrongly applied the law of proof which is stated in the judge's consideration of the Appeal Decision. Key sentence: visum et repertum, witness of testimonium de auditu, Appeal Decision

Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal Baca Jurnal