Judgement R.P.A 11.889: Prosecutor against the accused MFUTILA NTALU
In his letter of the 11th March 2010, sent to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of
Kinshasa/Gombe and received on the 12th March 2010, Mr. MFUTILA NTALU Valeur
appealed the judgement rendered on the 15th February 2010 by the Court of First Instance of
Kinshasa/Gombe, under the designation R.P. 19.165, which had established the offense of
rape of a child for whom the accused was responsible and sentenced him to ten years in
prison and a fine of 800.000 Congolese Francs as well as the payment of the equivalent in
Congolese francs of 5,000 USD in damages in favor of the victim and, finally, sentenced him
to pay the costs and fees of the proceedings within the legal time frame or otherwise face 10
days of imprisonment.
In the public hearing on the 11th October 2013, in which this case was appealed, argued and
taken into deliberation, the appellant appeared in person assisted by his lawyers
BOLANZEKO BOLA and MANGASAYI, both Lawyers at the Matete Bar;
The procedure is thus regular, the appellant having accepted to appear voluntarily, renouncing
the regular notification formalities;
Filed within the legal constraints and time frame, this appeal is in conformity and thus
admissible;
The facts of the case remain constant. In fact, the appellant working as house help (Boy) in
the neighboring plot of the girl LIKOMBI Francine's parents; On the date of the 29 th May 2009,
around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, while the boss and his wife were absent, the accused
appellant invited the girl, aged 11, to go collect the 100 Congolese Francs in oranges that he
had borrowed from her; Not being able to resist the cunning of a 51-year-old man, the child
entered the plot and the appellant took her behind the big house where he forced himself on
her by introducing his penis in the victim's vagina; Questioned in front of the Officer of the
Judicial police, the appellant confessed ( ratings 4-S). However, in front of the Prosecution, he
retracted his confession, except the part concerning the fondling “in front of the body” as well
as the thighs (ratings 10-11);
At the public hearing in front of the first judge, the appellant declared that he had touched the
breasts (cotes 23, verso); In front of this very Court, while recognizing that the victim sold
oranges, the appellant-accused did not react to the reading of his statements, whether in front
of the Officer of the Judicial police or in front of the Prosecution (cotes 32-34);
The Prosecution asked for the confirmation of the referred judgement;
Speaking to support the appeal, the appellant's lawyers argued about the sentence’s lack of
motivation in the sense that it was based on the medical report that the first judge claimed
that the appellant had raped and deflowered the girl LIKOMBI Francine. They also stated that
the Officer of Judicial Police's record does not inform if the victim was, when interrogated,
assisted by her parents or by an adult, in accordance with the doctrine providing that inquiries
concerning rape must focus primarily on the detailed interrogation of the victim ( if the victim is
a child, to distrust its inventive or maybe perverse spirit that may lead it to make false