檢察官客觀性義務之研究

A Study of the Prosecutorial Obligation to Objectivity

郭吉助(Jui-Juh Guo)

指導教授 ： 蔡墩銘

共同指導教授 ： 陳顯武

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/博士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.00091

摘要

檢察官在現代社會中所擔負的任務很多，必須公正客觀地執行職務，為公益代表人，負有客觀性義務；此義務規範檢察官要摒除個人主觀好惡、公正無私地調查犯罪事實的真相、蒐集證據，其實質內涵即在實現司法正義並保障人權；該義務已經成為世界各國不同法系國家共識的國際刑事司法準則，並非僅是一個標籤。
客觀性義務除維護個人的利益和權利之外，也是國家貫徹和執行其適用的法律規範之保證，並且擔保訴訟程序的合法性；原則上即在達成人權保障與真實發現、實現正義的刑事訴訟目的。此義務符合檢察機關定位為司法機關與法律監督機關的性質，具有普世價值，檢察官為客觀的法律守護人，自應本諸良知切實履行。
研究發現，在對程序參與者為訴訟主體的尊重前提下，刑事程序各階段中，檢察官必須受到以公正、客觀與真實性為基礎之刑事程序的特別條件所拘束；與被告並非處於敵對立場，不容許以不擇手段、不問是非及不計代價的方法發現真實；不應一味地為被告不利事項窮追猛打，才能發現真實，實現公平正義，提升檢察官形象與存在價值。

關鍵字

客觀性義務 ； 改良式當事人進行主義 ； 公益代表人 ； 法律守護人 ； 檢察一體 ； 無罪推定 ； 實質真實調查 ； 交互詰問

並列摘要

Public prosecutors bear plenty of duties in modern world. As guardians of public interests, prosecutors have a duty of objectiveness, with a view to fulfilling their tasks impartially and objectively. Under such requirements, prosecutors are supposed to obtain and administer evidence in a way the truth can be found in a just and unbiased way, without referring to their personal likes or dislikes. The essence is to realize judicial justice and safeguard human rights. Nowadays the requirement has become an international consensus and a standard of criminal justice across different jurisdictions, not a mere slogan.
The purpose of the obligation of objectiveness is not only for the protection of personal privileges and rights, but also as a guarantee offered by a country to enforce the law impartially as well as to ensure the proceeding legitimacy. This duty enables the primary purposes of criminal procedure, i.e. human rights protection, truth-finding, and justice, to be realized in due course. In line with the universal value, this obligation conforms to the nature of a prosecutor serving as a judicial official as well as a supervisor of law enforcement. In this way, prosecutors are expected as objective guardians of law, who should practice law in their good conscience.
The prosecutors should understand well that, due to decent respect toward any parties to the procedure, they are restrained by special requirements coming from impartiality, objectiveness, and truth, in each stage of criminal proceedings. Prosecutors are not the enemies of defendants. They should not go all lengths, at any cost, just to discover the only one version of truth. They are not allowed to pursue merely unfavorable evidence against defendants. Favorable evidence for the defense should also be considered. In other words, the truth should be found in a way complying with justice and fairness. As a result, the image of the prosecutor will hopefully be improved, and the prosecutorial value is expected to be better appreciated.

並列關鍵字

Obligation of Objectiveness ； Refined Adversarial System ； Advocates of Public Interests ； Guardian of the Law ； Unity of Prosecutors ； Presumption of Innocence ； Substantive Fact-Finding ； Cross examination

參考文獻

8. 王兆鵬，《刑事被告的憲法權利》，臺灣大學法學叢刊編輯委員會，1999年3月。

（三）學術研討會及研究報告

21. 林俊益，《刑事訴訟法概論（上冊）》，2001年9月。

38. 林明鏘，〈由防止危害到危險預防：由德國警察任務與權限之嬗變檢討我國之警察法制〉，《臺大法學論叢》39卷第4期，2010年12月。

67. 郭吉助，〈論檢察官之最後辯護行為－以德國法為中心〉，國立臺灣大學《法學論叢》30卷6期，2001年11月。