Supreme Court Dismissal of Robbery and Firearms Charges
Article 5. The Prosecutor served as the plaintiff against Mr. Dam and Mr. Ang, charging them with the unauthorized possession of a firearm with the intent to commit robbery and the killing of the deceased. The Trial Court issued a sentence of imprisonment for both defendants, Mr. Dam receiving a sentence of 18 years and Mr. Ang receiving a sentence of 18 years, for the offense of jointly committing robbery resulting in the death of another person, and both defendants receiving a sentence of 1 year for the offense of possessing and using a firearm without a permit. Mr. Dam appealed this conviction, arguing that he did not jointly commit robbery resulting in the death of another person. He did not appeal the offense of jointly possessing and using a firearm without a permit. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the prosecution on this matter. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling, finding that the defendants were not the perpetrators of the crime as alleged. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the charges against the defendants for the offense of jointly possessing and using a firearm (A) without authorization, where no appeal was made, and the reason for this dismissal. (B) The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the charges against Mr. Ang, as well. (A) Upon the Supreme Court hearing the evidence that the defendants were not the perpetrators of the crime as charged, it could dismiss all charges, even the offense of jointly possessing and using a firearm, although this offense was subject to termination due to the absence of an appeal. However, this was a matter of the same facts related to the offense under consideration. Therefore, the Supreme Court had the authority to dismiss the charges relating to this offense. According to Section 185, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, combined with Section for Mr. Ang, even though he did not appeal to the Supreme Court, the dismissal based on the fact that the defendants were not the perpetrators of the crime, constituted a dismissal based on the nature of the power to dismiss extending to Mr. Ang, as provided in Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code, combined with Section 225 (4 points).