證據排除法則概括條款適用架構之研究

A Research on General Clause of Exclusionary Rule

鄭毓樺(Yu-Hua Cheng)

指導教授 ： 徐偉群

中原大學/法學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201600955

摘要

對於違背法定程序取得之證據，如法未明文規定排除其證據時，關於此等證據是否有證據能力的問題，民國92 年立法院明文訂定刑事訴訟法第158 條之4 以前，約莫民國80 年至92 年期間，最高法院以及下級法院判決多採肯定態度，認為縱使法未明文規定排除證據之效果，法官亦得以解釋而排除違背法定程序取得之證據。其後，民國92 年增訂定刑事訴訟法第158 條之4：「除法律另有規定外，實施刑事訴訟程序之公務員因違背法定程序取得之證據，其有無證據能力之認定，應審酌人權保障及公共利益之均衡維護。」作為證據排除之法源依據，然而，實務以及學說適用此條時，衍生兩大爭議問題：適用範圍爭議以及適用基準爭議。

關於適用範圍爭議部分，國內文獻對於第158 條之4 適用範圍是否包括供述證據迭有爭議，申言之，第158 條之4 適用範圍是否包括供述證據與非供述證據，抑或此條僅得適用於非供述證據。本文將從證據排除法則定義、立法沿革以及文義解釋等方面探討第158 條之4 的適用範圍。

就適用基準爭議部分，實施刑事訴訟程序之公務員因違背法定程序取得之證據，其有無證據能力之認定，依158 條之4 應審酌人權保障及公共利益之均衡維護，惟認定該證據其證據能力有無之基準是否應以權衡理論為限抑或如學者所言第158條之4 為各理論之理論平台，存有爭議。本文擬從第158 條之4 法文中「人權保障與公共利益之均衡維護」闡釋其意涵。又若一概以權衡理論作為排除證據之理論基準，其排除效果是否具有相當性又為另一問題。本文另舉數則實務判決說明適用權衡理論時所衍生的泛泛權衡、法不安定性以及法官不重視違法審查等問題。

若第158 條之4 不是以權衡理論判定證據是否排除，那麼究竟有無基準為本文另一個探討的重心。本文建議以「規範保護目的理論」作為證據能力判斷基準，並提出為何應以規範保護目的作為證據能力判斷基準的理由。

關鍵字

證據排除法則 ； 權衡理論 ； 規範保護目的理論

並列摘要

Some articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not stipulate the admissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained by an official before 2003. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court and courts at lower levels admitted to exclude the illegal evidence through interpretation in a few court cases during the years from 1991 to 2003. In 2003, the Legislative Yuan enacted the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 158-4: “The admissibility of the evidence, obtained in violation of the procedure prescribed by the law by an official in execution of criminal procedure, shall be determined by balancing the protection of human rights and preservation of public interests, unless otherwise provided by law,” as the general clause of legal reference of exclusionary rule. In the application of Article158-4 in practice and academic setting, controversies over two issues erupted: it is the controversies between the scope of application and the standard of application.

In the aspect of the scope of Article 158-4, some scholars consider the scope shall include testimonial evidence and non-testimonial evidence, while some scholars consider it is applicable only to non-testimonial evidence. This study claims that the scope of Article 158-4 shall include testimonial evidence and non-testimonial evidence from the aspect of the definition of the exclusionary rule, the history of legislation and the interpretation of legal statue.

In the aspect of the standard of admissibility of evidence of Article 158-4, some scholars consider that the standard shall be the balance theory, while some scholars consider that Article 158-4 is a platform of any kind of theory. This study claims that the standard shall not be restricted to the balance theory from the aspect of the meaning of “balancing the protection of human rights and preservation of public interest”. If the balance theory is adopted as the only standard for Article 158-4, the appropriateness of effect of exclusion is another question. In this paper, a few court cases were used in the study to explain the application problem of balance theory, the instability of the law and the negligence of the court judges on review of the violation of law.

Since the balance theory is not the standard of admissibility of evidence of Article 158-4, this study claims that the standard shall be based on “the theory of regulation protection purpose” as the criteria of the admissibility of evidence. For the reason that regulation protection purpose of testimonial evidence involves protection of individual free will and authenticity of testimonial evidence, the admissibility of testimonial evidence shall be more strictly determined than non-testimonial evidence. The theory of regulation protection purpose determines the admissibility of evidence on the basis of regulation protection purpose, thus the effect of exclusion conforms to regulation protection purpose. Furthermore, the theory of regulation protection purpose can ascertain what kind of rights should be definitely protected, which reduces instability of the law.

並列關鍵字

exclusionary rule of evidence ； balance theory ； theory of regulation protection purpose

參考文獻

12. 許澤天，刑事訴訟法論( II )，自版 (2003)。

14. 黃朝義，刑事訴訟法，一品文化 (2007)。

15. 黃朝義，刑事訴訟法，新學林 (2009年9月)。

6. 朱石炎，刑事訴訟法論，三民 (2010)。

8. 林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法(上)，元照 (2010)。