【作者】 王满生；

【导师】 孙长永；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑事诉讼法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 现行刑事证据理论是以实体法事实为证明对象进行构建的,而本文所关注的却是程序法事实作为证明对象的一整套证据理论。虽然对于部分程序法事实需要证明已经成为学界的基本共识,但是与实体法事实为证明对象的一整套完整的证据理论相比较而言,程序法事实的证明研究基本处于空白。本文将实体法事实证据理论为基本参照,在考察程序法事实的基本特征和证明目的基础上,认为程序法事实的证明价值主要在于保障人权,形成程序法治,而后才是发现真实。基于程序法事实的证明目的与诉讼效率的应对,程序法事实在证明方法上与实体法事实有着根本的不同。实体法事实由于其定罪量刑的重要性与诉讼终局的最后决定性导致其必须采用最为严格的证明方法,而程序法事实由于其程序的特性和种类的多元性决定了需采用严格证明和自由证明的不同方法。基因于程序法事实的证明方法不同,文章在考察证据一般理论与证明规律的基础上,构建了程序法事实独特的证明责任分配理论和多层次的证明标准理论。程序法事实证明理论研究必须最终落脚于中国刑事诉讼实践,文章在对我国刑事诉讼中程序法事实证明现状进行分析的基础上,提出了完善程序法事实证明程序以及相关配套制度的构想。论文主体由五章构成。第一章研究刑事程序法事实的范围。文章从事实、法律事实、刑事程序法事实概念的层层演进入手,认为刑事程序法律事实是受刑事诉讼法律规范规制的,能影响诉讼进程,具有权力或权利性质,能生成或者消灭诉讼主张的事实。基于程序法事实的性质,对于程序法事实可以作一定的分类。从权利实现方式上看,可以将程序法事实分为权利形成型程序法事实、权利侵害型程序法事实以及权利妨碍型程序法事实；从权力行为属性上看,可以将程序法事实分为权力请求型程序法事实、权力违法型程序法事实；从法律规范的层次上看,可以分为普通法律规制型、宪法规制型、国际条约规制型等程序法律事实。分类的目的是为进一步研究作铺垫的,分类为程序法事实证明范围的判断提供了基础。作为程序法事实而言,需要进行证明的仅仅限于其中的一部分,文章提出了四个界定标准,即宪法规制程序法事实需要证明,其他法律规范规制的程序法事实可以选择性证明；对案件的定罪量刑有直接影响的程序法事实需要证明,只有间接影响的可以选择性证明；能直接决定诉讼中止、终止的应该证明；侵犯被追诉人基本人权的应该证明,侵犯被追诉人其他权利的可以选择性证明。第二章主要论述了程序法事实证明的价值。程序法事实的证明价值用一句话概括即为推进程序法治。程序法治的价值内容体现为权利、秩序与效率三个方面,三个价值的不同排序决定了程序的不同价值取向。文章认为现代刑事程序价值应该是一种以权利为圆心、兼顾秩序与效率的价值体系。程序法事实的证明以完整的程序权利设计为前提,以权力控制和制裁为载体,以权利保障、秩序构建和效率衡平为己任。在权利保障方面,主要是通过职权型程序法事实证明促进司法审查和司法授权的实现,通过侵权型程序法事实证明来实现程序制裁,通过权利形成型程序法事实证明进一步实现程序主张。在秩序价值方面,程序法事实证明通过程序争议举证责任的分配实现定纷止争,形成合理的诉讼秩序；促进刑事诉讼行为的合法行使,实现诉讼秩序的法治化；通过程序法事实证明中的民主、人权精神促进稳定开放的权利性秩序构建。而程序法事实证明的效率价值主要是：通过程序法事实证明的控权功能降低司法腐败增进司法效率；通过程序法事实证明的权利保障功能防止错案发生降低诉讼的社会成本；通过对程序法事实的证明方法、证明范围、证明标准的合理设置增进诉讼效率。第三章论证了刑事诉讼程序法事实的证明方法与程序。文章首先从证明概念的演化入手,认为证明不仅仅是一种局限于法庭的证据审查活动,证明是指一方向中立的一方证明自己的主张或者请求的活动,证明的对象可以是实体法事实也可以是程序法事实。程序法事实的证明主体体现为所有参与诉讼的人,证明活动贯穿于诉讼的全过程,并通过争议形式或者请求形式体现出来。程序法事实的证明与实体法事实证明的最大区别在于证明方法不同,实体法事实的证明方法采取严格证明方法,而程序法事实的证明主要采取自由证明方法。对于采取自由证明的绝大多数程序法事实证明而言,证据材料的来源上没有严格的法定性要求,不严格遵守证据规则,证人不一定出庭,在心证上为大致可信的证明标准与优势证据的证明标准。但是对于自白任意性的证明,应该采取严格证明的方式,其严格证明与实体法事实的严格证明依然存在着差异。笔者主张,在证明标准上不需要达到事实清楚、证据确属充分、结果惟一的程度,只需达到排除合理怀疑的标准,在证据调查上,采取了比实体法事实稍微宽松的原则。第四章主要阐述了刑事程序法事实的证明责任与证明标准。文章认为程序法事实的证明责任可以划分为提出证据的责任和说服责任,由于程序法事实对诉讼结果、案件进程、人权影响不同,程序法事实说服责任的判断标准不仅与实体法事实不一,而且在程序法事实内部也不一样。程序法事实证明责任也是客观证明责任和主观证明责任的统一,是行为责任与结果责任的统一。程序法事实证明责任与实体法事实证明责任相比,依然存在着重大的区别,主要体现在：由于程序法事实证明贯彻于诉讼所有阶段,所以程序法事实证明责任也贯穿于诉讼的全过程；其次,程序法事实证明责任的承担主体比实体法事实证明责任承担主体广泛；再次,无罪推定和不被强迫自证其罪原则对程序法事实证明责任的分配影响有限,不像在实体法事实证明责任中一样成为证明责任分配的黄金规则。在分配模式上,实体法事实证明责任一般体现为立法分配模式,而程序法事实是以立法分配为主兼有法官分配的混合分配模式。在证明责任的承担主体上,实体法事实的证明责任由控方承担、被告方承担为例外,而程序法事实证明的主体主要有犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、被害人、侦查机关、检察机关、法院、鉴定人,应该说凡是发生程序争议,提出程序主张的都应是程序法事实证明责任的主体。文章认为影响程序法事实证明责任分配的因素有三个方面,一是刑事诉讼与刑事诉讼证明的目的；二是基于证明责任承担主体的证明能力；三是基于证明便利的考虑。根据这些影响因素,文章提出了程序法事实证明责任分配的三个原则：权利形成型程序法事实由提出主张人承担证明责任；权利侵害型程序争议由受侵害人提出初步证据,侵害人承担证明责任；职权请求型程序法事实由提出请求一方承担证明责任。对于程序法事实的证明标准,文章认为实体法事实的证明标准不适应主要的程序法事实证明,程序法事实证明是程序正义与追求实体真相的一种衡平,程序法事实证明追求的是一种有限真实的多层次的证明标准。由于程序法事实种类繁多,贯穿于刑事诉讼的全过程,不同的程序法事实对被告人的利益、对案件的定罪量刑具有不同的意义,所以不同程序法事实其证明标准也有所不同。总体来说,程序法事实的证明标准体现在三个层次,即大致可信的证明标准；证据优势的证明标准；排除合理怀疑的证明标准。文章认为排除合理怀疑和事实清楚、证据确实充分的标准依然存在着区别,事实清楚、证据确实充分不应成为程序法事实的证明标准。理论的研究提升于实践,最后又须回到实践,在解决了程序法事实证明的价值、范围、证明方法、证明责任与证明标准的基础上,探讨如何完善我国刑事诉讼中程序法事实证明就成了整篇文章的着力点与落脚点。第五章首先分析了我国程序法事实证明的现状。从现行立法上看,职权请求型程序法事实主要以强制措施为例,认为绝大部分强制措施不需要向中立机关履行证明程序,没有相对一方的参与,证明标准把握上比较模糊、主观性强；侵权型程序争议主要以非法证据排除规则为研究对象,认为非法证据审查启动模式灵活多样,能较好地保护被告人权益,证明标准与实体法事实证明标准无异,但是笔者认为程序法事实证明标准过高,不符合程序法事实证明责任分配的一般原理,对证据的形式和调查都要求严格,证明方法应为严格证明,在证明责任的分配上,被告承担提出初步证据责任,控方承担说服的证明责任；对于权利形成型程序法事实的证明,文章认为现行法律对该类程序法事实规定有限,其裁决程序比较随意,不利于被追诉人利益的保护。对于我国现行程序法事实证明缺失现状,归纳了三个方面的原因,一是侦查和起诉阶段的司法授权和司法审查缺失；二是侵权行为的程序性制裁制度不完善；三是程序法事实的证明的程序缺失。为了促进我国刑事诉讼运行的法治化、文明化、民主化,进一步规范与制约司法权力的合法行使,制裁违法的司法行为,推进程序法事实的证明,应该完善程序法事实证明的证明程序与相关配套制度。主要有将现有侦查中心的诉讼构造逐步转变为以审判为中心的诉讼构造,建构司法授权与司法审查制度；完善程序违法的制裁制度,扩大刑事诉讼行为无效制度的适用范围,创建撤销起诉和诉讼终止制度；完善非法证据的排除规则；在完善程序法事实的证明程序方面,根据我国刑事程序流程的特点,可以在审前设置专门的中间程序,由专司机构---司法审查庭,受理程序请求与程序争议,建构程序上诉制度,允许对部分程序争议不服提出上诉,或者进一步改造我国现有的刑事监督庭,将程序法事实的争议裁决功能置于其中,承担起程序性请求的批准、程序性争议的裁决的责任。结语部分,回顾全文,总结全文,概括作者的主要观点,提出对证明新领域------程序法事实证明的展望。更多还原

【Abstract】 The current criminal evidence theory is based on substantive facts, the article is on a evidence theory on procedural facts, according to reach on procedural facts is in blank. The purpose of proof of procedure facts is to protect human rights and discover the truth, refer to the basic characteristics of procedural facts. Based on the purpose of proof and efficiency, the proof method of procedural facts is different from the substantive facts. The proof method of substantive facts is strengbeweis because it is decisive fact due to litigation results, and the proof method of substantive facts is freibeweis due to its characteristics.According to the method of freibeweis, the author constructs the burden of proof distribution theory and multi-level proof standard theory. The research of proof theory on procedural facts must return to the practice,the author put forward ideas to perfect the proof of procedural facts and the supporting system.This paper is composed of introduction, five chapters and conclusion. The introduction mainly explores the following three questions:the importance of this subject, the current study situation and the research methods. This paper insists that study of demonstration of facts in procedural law is very important in extending study scope of evidence law, pushing the reform of legal system and promoting the legalization of procedure. The current study situation shows that researchers have already studied the demonstration of procedural fact, but not systematically or comprehensively.Chapter One explores the scope of facts in criminal procedure. After studying the concept of facts and legal facts, we conclude mat fact is a kind of objective facts as well as the statement of experience. However, the fact of statute contains four aspects:legal fact is the fact of statute; the fact that produces legal effect; the fact that causes legal effect, changes and extermination of rights as well as obligations; the_systematic fact that can be applied repeatedly; the fact that generates and eliminates claims. But the fact in criminal procedure has not only the character of legal fact but also its own character:firstly, it affects legal proceeding; secondly, it has the nature of right or power. According to the way of realization of rights, the fact in the procedural law can be divided into three types:the facts generating rights; the facts impairing rights and the facts hindering rights. Moreover, according to the execution and the legality of the power, the fact in the procedural law can be divided into the fact claiming power and the fact proving the illegality of power. As for the procedural fact which is viewed as the object of demonstration, this paper defines4standards applied in dividing the facts in the procedural law. These standards are as follows:the statute regulating procedural facts; the influences on conviction and punishment; the influences on procedural proceedings and the influences on the human rights.The second chapter mainly studies the value of the demonstration of procedural fact which can be generally defined as pushing forward the rule of law in legal procedure. Rights, order and efficiency are three aspects of the value in ruling by law in procedural field and the different assignments of them reflect different value-orientation. This paper thinks the modern criminal procedure should be right-centered_and at the same time give consideration to order and efficiency. The demonstration of procedural facts views the design of procedural rights as pre-condition and regards the control of power as well as the punishment as means to achieve the target of protecting rights, constructing order and balancing efficiency. In order to protect rights, the demonstration of fact with the nature of dividing powers is helpful to realize the achievement of judicial review and the grant of judicial power; the demonstration of fact with the nature of impairing power can make procedural punishment realized; the demonstration of facts with the nature of generating rights can fulfill procedural claims. Referring to the value of order, the demonstration of procedural fact can form litigation order by allocating the burden of proof to resolve disputes. And the democracy in connection with spirits of human rights which are both contained in demonstration of procedural facts can promote the construction of stable and open right-oriented order. In respect of efficiency, the demonstration of procedural fact can improve judicial efficiency by preventing judicial corruption, reduce social costs by reducing misjudged cases, improve litigation efficiency by proper demonstration methods, demonstration scopes and demonstration standards.Chapter Three studies the methods applied to demonstrate facts in criminal procedure. This chaper studies the evolution of the concept of demonstration firstly and draws the conclusion that demonstration can not just be limited to trial. It is the activity that one party proves his own claims to the independent party. The objects of demonstration can be substantive facts or procedural facts presented in the form of disputes or claims. The subjects of demonstration are all the parties participating in litigation. The demonstrative activity runs through the whole litigation process. Furthermore, the most distinctive difference between demonstration in substantive law and procedure law is the way to demonstrate. The demonstrative methods in substantive law are under strict regulation but in procedural law the demonstration operates at liberty. For most of the procedural facts, the parties can prove them freely and the resources of evidence are not bounded strictly by law. Meanwhile, there is no need to obey the evidence rules strictly and the appearance of witness is not necessary. Also it is dispensable to achieve the standard of excluding all the reason doubts. However, strengbeweis should be applied to the demonstration of voluntary confession.Chapter4mainly studies the standards of proof as well as the burden of proof applied in the demonstration of facts in criminal procedure. This paper holds to the opinion that the burden of proof in the demonstration of procedure law can be divided into the burden to raise evidence and the burden to persuade. Due to the fact that legal facts in the procedural law influence the outcome of lawsuit, the proceeding of litigation as well as the human rights, the persuasive standards in procedural law is not only different from those in substantive law but also different from each other in procedure. The burden of proof in procedural fact is the combination of subjective and objective burden of proof. And it is the combination of behavior responsibility and outcome responsibility. However, there are tremendous distinctions in burden of proof between procedural fact and substantive fact. First of all, procedural fact runs through the litigation and so the burden of proof runs through the litigation. Secondly, the subject responsible for the burden of proof in procedural laws is broader than that in substantive law. Thirdly, the principles of presumption of innocence and of against self-incrimination limit effects on the distribution of the burden of proof in procedural law, although both of them are core principles in substantive law. The mode of distribution of burden of proof in the demonstration of facts in substantive law is legislation-oriented but in procedure law it is not only legislation-oriented but also needs judge’s discretion. In substantive law, the prosecutor bears burden of proof mainly, but in procedural law, the party who raises procedural claims should bear burden of proof. These subjects include but not limited to suspects, defendants, victims, prosecutors, investigating agency and court. There are three elements influence the distribution of the burden of proof: the criminal litigation and the aim of demonstration; the demonstrative capacity of the party who bears burden of proof; the consideration of facilitating the demonstration. According to the elements mentioned above, there are three principles applied in the distribution of burden of proof in the demonstration of facts in procedural law. The first principle is that the party who raises the claim demonstrates the procedure with the nature of creating rights. The second principle is that the victim should raise preliminary evidence in the procedural dispute with nature of impairing rights. The third principle is that the party who raises claim bears the burden of proof in the procedural fact with the nature of requesting authority.We think the standards applied in the demonstration of fact in substantive law can not be applied in the procedural law because the demonstration of facts with the nature of limited truth and multi-levels in procedure law are one sort of balance between procedural justice and outcome truth. There are different kinds of procedural facts in litigation and they affect defendant and the outcome of lawsuit in different degree. Therefore, different procedural facts apply different standards. Generally speaking, there are three levels existing in criterion of proof. They are the general credible demonstrative standard, proof on the balance of probabilities and standard of beyond reasonable doubt.Chapter5explores the current situation existing in China’s criminal procedure and the methods to consummate it. At the beginning, this chapter analyses the reasons causing current situation and disadvantages in the demonstration of procedural facts and describes related systems and procedural construction in the demonstration of procedural fact. In current legislative background, the demonstration of procedural fact is reflected in three different sides. And now we take facts applied in the procedure with nature of requesting authority for example, we think that there is no need to prove most of the coercive measures toward independent authority and without the participation of the counterparty, the standard of proof is misty and subject-oriented. The procedural dispute with the nature of impairing rights views rules regarding to the exclusion of evidence as main study project. We think there are several methods applied in the initiation of investigation in illegal evidence. Under background mentioned above, the defendant gets satisfied protection and the applied standards are similar to them used in substantive law. They both apply strict standards in the form of evidence as well as investigation and strict demonstration methods. Referring to the distribution of burden of proof, defendants submit the prima facie evidence and bear the burden to persuade judges. And for the procedural facts with the nature of generating rights, we think that the current law gets limited regulation over them and the verdict procedure is random. We think that there are three main causes leading to the insufficiency of the demonstration of procedural fact. The first one is the lack of the grant of judicial authority and judicial review. The second one is the insufficient procedural punishment system against offence. The last one is the lack of demonstrations in procedural facts. In order to enhance the legalization, civilization and democratization of the operation in domestic criminal procedure, it is necessary to regulate the operation of judicial procedure authority and punish the illegal procedural activities. And it is also important to perfect the procedural fact demonstration system. The methods strongly recommended to take are as follows:change the current investigation-oriented procedure system into judge-oriented system to construct judicial grant system and judicial review system; consummate the punishment system in illegal procedure to extend the scope of criminal procedure; establish the lawsuit-dismiss system as well as the stay of proceedings system. Moreover, it is necessary to perfect the rulers applied in the exclusion of illegal evidence. In the demonstration procedure, according to the character of China’s criminal procedure, the establishment of intermediate procedure of which is in judicial review court’s are recommended. This special court can hear procedural claim and judge procedural disputes. At the same time, it is essential to construct procedure-appeal system to hear procedural disputes.The last part summarizes the author’s main idea, puts forward the outlook of the demonstration of procedural fact.更多还原