Judgement RPA 2824: Prosecutor against the accused Mbula Bulambo
In his letter of the 18th July 2012, addressed to this Court's Clerk and received on the same
date, the accused MBULA BULAMBO, for finding it ill-advised, appealed the judgement RP
13401 pronounced by the Court of First Instance of Bukavu on the 6th July 2012.
In the terms of said judgement, the above mentioned jurisdiction established the crime of rape
of children by the accused MBULA BULAMBO Alexis and sentenced him to 7 (seven) years of
penal servitude and to the payment of the equivalent in FC to 500$ ( five hundred dollars) in
damages and interest to be paid to the victim SIFA MURHULA.
Justifying the admissibility of his appeal and reacting to the request of the Prosecution to
declare it inadmissible due to its belatedness, the accused maintained that his appeal is
admissible once the previous judgement, pronounced after the date established by the Court,
was never communicated to him as to allow an appeal within the requisite ten days; In this
matter, the Court finds that the 1st judge of the case, deliberated on the 24th January 2012;
This Court has only intervened on the 6th July 2012. In its absence, his appeal, introduced on
the 18 July 2012, is admissible.
In the public hearing of the 20th September 2012 in which this case was formalized, argued
and taken into deliberation after the request of the Prosecution, the accused was present in
person of his own accord, assisted by his counselor Master Marius MUSEMA.
The procedure taken is in conformity;
It follows from the elements on file that in the month of July 2012, the accused begun living
with the girl SIFA MURHULA, underage at the time, and since that moment has consummated
sexual relations with her, of which a child was born.
As way of appeal, the accused reproaches the 1st judge for having sentenced him since the
moral element is the default in the crime of rape of children of which he is accused, an
element that he defines as being the guilty intention resulting from the violence exercised by
the accused over the victim.
The Court finds that the accused's argument is irrelevant because, since the case deals with
a victim under 10 years of age, the law establishes a presumption that discards the
examination of the author's intention. In the course of this case, the accused maintained that
Miss SIFA is his wife, with whom he has a child. He adds that their friendship began in March
2010 and that he was well known by the girl's mother. In July 2010, he continued, while he
prepared to present himself officially to the family for the dowry ceremony, he just took her in
his house where they began living together. It was upon the arrival of the girl's father, that was
absent during their friendship, that the latter had him arrested for not having paid the dowry.
He concludes everything is attributed to his poverty, because if he was able to immediately
pay the dowry there wouldn't be a problem with his wife.