【作者】 黄淳；

【导师】 龙宗智；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 在刑事诉讼中,“一事不再理”原则具有举足轻重的地位和作用,是贯穿整个刑事追诉、审判过程的基本原则。而在刑事诉讼中违反这一基本原则之最典型行为就是“重复追诉”。重复追诉带来的危害是巨大的,其使被告人沦为诉讼的客体,使其长期受具有贬抑效果的诉讼程序的折磨,使无辜的被告人很容易就被定罪,严重侵害被告人的正当程序权利;同时,重复追诉导致诉讼资源的极大浪费,导致司法权威受到严重损害,也为侦查、起诉、审判人员办案效率的低下创造了条件。总之,重复追诉严重侵蚀着法的平等、公正、自由、秩序等根本价值。因此,在我国刑事诉讼制度日益向全面尊重和体现法的多元价值,建立以当事人主义对抗制为主、职权主义为辅的刑事诉讼构造,实体公正与程序公正并重,公正与效率并重的方向改革发展的大趋势下,研究重复追诉现象及禁止重复追诉制度的建构和适用,具有重大的意义,受到学者们的高度重视。遗憾的是,由于历史的原因,我国刑事诉讼法学界对该问题还未曾展开系统、深入的研究。为此,笔者选择了此一颇富开拓且具挑战性的课题作为自己博士论文的研究对象,试图在“一事不再理”原则的基础上,建构体系较为完整并独具特色的、融保障实体正义与程序正义于一体的禁止重复追诉制度。全文共分八章。从探讨重复追诉的概念切入,较为详尽地分析了重复追诉的分类及其与相关概念之关系,阐述了禁止重复追诉规则及其例外的正当化理由,然后,着重分析了重复追诉之构成、形态、在诉讼程序中的表现形式,以及对不同形态重复追诉的规制,并对两大法系禁止重复追诉规则之例外进行了比较分析,最后,就在我国建构禁止重复追诉制度提出了自己的看法。在第一章,笔者通过对大陆法系“一事不再理”原则与英美法系禁止双重危险原则的比较,认为后者对重复追诉的制约存在局限性,即不能对“一案二诉”的情形及时施加制约。因而,笔者认为,就“重复追诉”的概念界定而言,应基于广义的“一事不再理”原则,而非英美禁止双重危险原则而加以界定。据此得出的“重复追诉”概念为:刑事诉讼中的重复追诉,是指在刑事诉讼中,控方针对同一被告的同一犯罪行为,于提起第一次追诉后,又于该追诉终结前或终结后再次提起追诉,导致对同一案件存在并行叠加或前后复接的两次追诉、审判过程的诉讼行为。其中,于第一次追诉终结前再次提起追诉的,为重叠式重复追诉;于第一次追诉终结后再次提起追诉的,为连续式重复追诉。另一方面,笔者也认为,作为禁止双重危险原则所体现的注重程序保障的理念应为大陆法系所借鉴,因而,在重复追诉概念中有关追诉终结的规定中引入了程序性制裁和预防性程序保障措施导致终结的制度设置。在第二章中,笔者对禁止重复追诉规则及其例外的正当化理由进行了分析阐述。主要从两个方面加以论证,一是价值分析,一是通过对两大法系相关原则、制度发展演变的考察,领会禁止重复追诉制度通过历史所内在积淀的理性力量。通过价值分析,我们认识到这一制度对于维护和体现法的经济、秩序、自由、平等和正义价值都具有重要作用;通过历史考察,我们认识到这一制度起源于自古希腊、罗马时期以来就成为两大法系共同理念的“一事不再理”原则,因此,尽管两大法系在随后的历史发展中分别发展出不同的原则、制度体系,但其本源有共通之处,从而为我们借鉴英美法系禁止双重危险原则、制度提供了理论支撑。在第三章,笔者从重复追诉的构成形态入手,分别对重叠式和连续式重复追诉的构成条件,以及追诉的性质对重复追诉构成的影响等问题进行了分析。就追诉的性质与重复追诉构成的关系而言,笔者认为:私人当事人之间进行的民事诉讼,不能被视为具有刑事性质,即便其所确定的民事责任具有一定的惩罚性亦然,因此,针对同一行为分别存在一次刑事追诉和民事诉讼,并不构成重复追诉;对于行政责任追究构成变相的刑事性质追诉的问题,主要应依靠理顺实体刑法与行政法之间的关系加以解决。为了重点针对重复追诉构成条件中的核心要素——同一性判断标准问题,以及追诉的开始、终结问题进行分析研究,笔者辟出第四、五章分别进行了论述。在第四章中,笔者分别对两大法系主要国家、地区的同一性判断标准进行了归纳整理,并将两大法系同一性标准进行了比较分析,认为:英美法系并非仅以法条比较来判定同一,其与大陆法系一样,也必须以基本事实同一作为判断同一的基础;英美法系的同一性之所以范围较之大陆法系的为狭窄,一方面系更加注重被告方防御权利的行使之故,而具有决定性的另一方面则系肇因于陪审团制度的实行,否则,我们就难以解释为何英美法系国家并未像日本刑诉法那样,在采用“诉因对象说”的同时,保留“公诉事实同一性”这一宽的同一性范围,从而既保障了被告人的防御权利,又在较宽的范围内顾及到保障被告人的妨诉利益。笔者认为,由于英美法系实行陪审团制度,如果允许控方在宽范围内变更诉因,则将导致集中、不间断审判原则受到破坏,尤其在陪审团审理案件时,更难以进行间断审理;英美法系同一性标准较之大陆法系标准具有更好的可操作性和可预测性,但形式化特征更明显,而大陆法系的标准则更加实质化。在第五章中,笔者首先对两大法系涉及到本文所界定的追诉开始与终结的相关理论,尤其是英美法系的危险附着理论进行了介绍,澄清了国内学者对英美法系危险附着理论的一些误解,然后,提出了对追诉的开始与终结的一系列构想,认为第一次追诉的开始应以起诉为标志,而二次追诉则以具备追诉功能、导致追诉程序重叠或前后复接的控审双方的诉讼行为为标志。并将追诉的开始与英美法系一重危险的起始点作了区分,明确了危险起点的意义。对于追诉的终结问题,笔者借鉴英美法系双重危险理论注重程序保障的优点,引入程序性制裁理论和预防性程序保障理念,界定了实体判决前追诉终结的特定时点,但又基于“一事不再理”的理念,对这类终结点的设定作出了限制,即仅在如果程序继续进行而不终结的情形下,被告人很有可能获得无罪判决时,方可由于控方的违反程序、严重侵害被告人程序权利的行为而导致追诉于实体判决作出之前终结。在第六章中,笔者探讨了诉讼程序中可能产生重复追诉的环节及重复追诉的表现形式,以及对重复追诉如何进行规制的问题。首先,笔者以第五章关于追诉终结的制度设置为基础,分别对连续追诉和重叠追诉在刑事诉讼程序中的产生环节进行了深入分析,认为在我国刑事诉讼程序中,构成连续追诉的情形包括:针对同一案件,当实体判决、针对实体刑罚权因刑罚被废止、大赦、特赦、追诉时效已经完成或已有确定判决等原因而消灭等情形所作出的“实体性形式裁判”确定后的再次起诉;一审中公诉机关因证据不足撤诉后的重新起诉;二审以定罪事实不清、定罪证据不足为根据的发回重审。构成重叠追诉的情形包括:对同一案件在第一次追诉终结前另行提起的分割追诉、重合追诉;公诉与自诉并存产生的重叠追诉:二审法院变更原审判决认定罪名等。其次,笔者针对一些学者关于诉讼程序中重复追诉存在环节的观点提出了商榷意见,主张:审查起诉阶段不存在重复追诉;一审中法院变更起诉罪名不构成重复追诉;二审程序中,控方对无罪判决的抗诉不构成重复追诉;二审法院对案件的“全面审查”不足以被认定为重复追诉。在此基础上,笔者针对重叠式与连续式两类形态的重复追诉,分别探讨分析了适用禁止重复追诉规则对其进行规制的方法。在第七章中,笔者对两大法系有关禁止重复追诉规则之例外制度进行了比较分析,主张借鉴德国法分别设置有利再审和不利再审的两种情况例外的制度,并借鉴英国《2003年刑事审判法》的改革,将“新事实、新证据”例外引入不利再审的例外条件中,但加以严格限制。同时,笔者认为,英美关于控方上诉仅能作为例外情况的制度设置,不适宜大陆法系国家借鉴,否则会破坏科层式的司法权力结构体系,削弱对初审法院审判权行使的权力制约,也与大陆法系国家的审级制度及其功能设置存在冲突。第八章探讨了禁止重复追诉规则在我国的建构和适用。首先,论证了该规则在我国建立的必要性和可行性,指出我国传统上实行“实事求是,有错必纠”的司法原则是导致司法实践中重复追诉现象屡有发生的观念根源,认为随着我国司法改革的进一步深入,建立禁止重复追诉规则已是大势所趋,进一步从我国传统文化观念中自古以来就存在的与该规则所体现价值的内在相容性、观念进步及科技进步等几个方面,论证了该规则在我国建立的可行性。在有关该规则的模式及具体建构方面,笔者提出了自己的一些设想和建议,包括:应采用以广义的“一事不再理”为基础、借鉴英美法系程序性制裁及预防性程序保障理念而建构的禁止重复追诉制度模式。对追诉的开始和终结的设定笔者也提出了自己的看法。关于同一性标准问题,笔者认为:首先,较为理想的同一性判定标准应该既能保障被告人的防御利益,又能在较宽的范围内保障被告人的妨诉利益得以实现,因此,同一性的范围应该较宽,同时,审判对象应由控方起诉决定,在诉讼中如需变更,也只能由控方在同一性范围内加以变更,而法院不可自行变更审判对象,不可超越控方决定的审判对象范围作出判决,这就意味着传统的审判不可分原则应予以废除,职权主义的诉讼模式应向当事人主义的诉讼模式转变;其次,起诉不可分原则仍应坚持,以避免控方对同一案件任意进行分割追诉。这一点在审判不可分被废除,法院只能针对控方起诉范围进行审理、判决的情况下尤为重要;其三,笔者主张设置较宽的同一性范围,以保障被告方的妨诉利益;反映职权主义特点的审判不可分原则应予以废除,以避免控方分割追诉,而起诉不可分原则应作为控方的义务和责任予以坚持,前提是具有“同时起诉可能性”。对不具备这一可能性的情形,如符合禁止重复追诉之例外,则按例外处理,允许再次追诉、审判。笔者还主张建立一个将犯罪目的的实现性、行为方式的组合性、行为发展的进程性和行为样态的类似性四因素结合,以基本事实同一为主、以法律评价同一判断为辅的综合评价同一性判定标准。对于再审制度的改革,笔者也提出了一些设想。更多还原

【Abstract】 In criminal action,the principle of "Non Bis in Idem" is crucially important and fundamental throughout the entire criminal prosecution and trial process."Repeated prosecution" is the typical action violating this fundamental principle during criminal action. It can bring huge harm,namely making defendant the object of the prosecution who will be under the long term judicial proceeding with depreciation and be rashly convicted,and also greatly violating the defendant’s legal right of enjoying the due procedures.Meanwhile,it wastes the judicial resources,which not only greatly harms the judicial authority but also slows down the work efficiency of investigators,prosecutors and judges.In one word, repeated prosecution brings great harm to the law’s fundamental value of equality,justness, liberty and order.The criminal action system of China is gradually respecting and embodying the law’s diversified values,establishing the criminal action structure with priority to party control adversary system and minor assistance from court control,and laying equal stress on substantive justice and procedure justice as well as justness and efficiency.Under this great tendency,the research on repeated prosecution and the establishment and application of the system of protection against repeated prosecution will enjoy great significance and receive considerable attention from scholars.However,for historical reasons,the criminal law circle has not extended a systematical and profound research on this issue.Thus,the author chooses this exploratory theme with great challenge as the topic of the doctoral dissertation and tries to construct relatively complete and distinctive system of protection against repeated prosecution combining guarantee on both substantive justice and procedure justice on the basis of "Non Bis in Idem" principle.Divided into 8 charpters,this dissertation starts with the discussion on the concept of repeated prosecution,analyzes the classification and its relation with relevant concept in details,elaborates the regulations of the protection against repeated prosecution and justified reasons of its exceptions,then emphasizes the composition of repeated prosecution and the procedural application of regulations of the protection against repeated prosecution,and makes a comparison between exceptions of the regulations of protection against repeated prosecution of the two law systems,and finally proposes author’s views on the establishment of the system of protection against repeated prosecution in China.In the first charpter,by the comparison between "Non Bis in Idem" of the continental law system and "protection against double jeopardy" principle of Anglo-American law system, the author concludes that the restriction on the repeated prosecution from the latter law system is limited,namely it can not make timely restriction on situation of "one case,two prosecutions".Therefore,the concept of "repeated prosecution" shall base on the generalized "Non Bis in Idem" principle rather than "protection against double jeopardy principle" of the Anglo-American law system.Thus,we find that the "repeated prosecution" in criminal action refers to the situation that the prosecuting party initiates a prosecution to defendant again on the same crime in the criminal action before or after the first prosecution is ended,which causes two parallel or continuous prosecutions and trials on the same case.Prosecution before the first prosecution ended is named as overlapped repeated prosecution while that after the first prosecution ended named as continuous repeated prosecution.Besides,the Procedure Guarantee concept embodied in the principle of protection against double jeopardy shall be consulted by the continental law system.Therefore,Procedure Sanction and Preventive Procedural Guarantee leading to an end are introduced into the relevant regulations of prosecution end of repeated prosecution concept.In the second charpter,the author demonstrates the regulations of protection against repeated prosecution and the justified reasons for its exceptions by two aspects,namely analysis of values and understanding on rational power accumulated in history of the system of protection against repeated prosecution through investigation on relevant principles,system development and evolution of the two law systems.Through value analysis,we find that this system plays an important role in protecting and embodying the law’s economy,order,liberty, equality and justice values.Through historical investigation,we can know that the system is originated from the common concept "Non Bis in Idem" of the two law systems since the ancient Greece and Rome period.Although many different principles and systems of the two law systems were generated in the later history,they still have common points which can provide theoretical support for the consultation of principle of protection against double jeopardy and system of the Anglo-American law system.As the core of the dissertation,in the third、the fourth and the fifth charpter,the author analyzes the composition of repeated prosecution from various aspects,such as its morphosis, judgment of identity,nature of prosecution,start and end of prosecution,etc.Through the summary of criteria of the identity judgment in dominating countries and regions in the two law systems and the comparison between that of the two law systems,the author concludes that the Anglo-American law system never judges the identity merely based on the law comparison;as the same with the continental law system,its identity judgment must accord with the basic fact identity;the reason why the identity of the Anglo-American law system is narrower than that of the continental law system is that on one hand,the Anglo-American law system pays more attention to the exertion of the defendant’s defending right;on the other hand,with determinant effect,the Anglo-American law system implements the jury system.Otherwise,there is no evidence for the reason why the countries carrying out the Anglo-American law system do not do the same with Japan as described in Japanese criminal procedure which preserves the wide identity range of "public prosecution identity" with adoption of "cause of action object theory" so as to guarantee the defendant’s defending right as well as the demurrer interest within a broader scope.Therefore,due to the implementation of the jury system in the Anglo-American law system,if the cause of action modification in a wider scope is permitted to the prosecution,the centralized and uninterrupted judgment principle will be demolished,e.g.the interrupted judgment will exert with difficulties especially during the jury judgment.The identity criteria in the Anglo-American law system are more operable and foreseeable with obvious characteristics of formalization than that of the continental law system with the characteristics of substantiation. As for the relationship between the nature of the prosecution and the formation of the repeated prosecution,the criminal nature of the civil action among individual litigants cannot be confirmed,in spite of the civil liability confirmed by which with certain punitive nature. Therefore,the identical action with both a criminal prosecution and civil action respectively cannot cause a repeated prosecution.The disguised criminal-nature prosecution caused by the administrative responsibility will be mainly settled depending on clearing the relationship between substantive criminal law and the administrative law.As for the start and end of prosecution,firstly,the related theories in both the Anglo-American law system and the continental law system have been introduced,especially the jeopardy attached theory,and clarified some misunderstanding of the domestic scholars for the jeopardy attached theory in the Anglo-American law system.Secondly,a series of ideas on the start and end of prosecution has been come up with,which confirms the first prosecution starts with indictment and the second one starts with litigation with prosecution function,causing overlapped or continuous prosecution procedure of the prosecuting party and defendant.Thirdly,the starting point of the prosecution and the first jeopardy of the Anglo-American law system have been clarified with clear significance of the jeopardy starting point described.As for the end of the prosecution,considering the double jeopardy theory in the Anglo-American law system featuring in the advantage of paying attention to the Procedure Guarantee,the Procedure Sanction theory and Preventive Procedural Guarantee concept have been brought in;the designated date of the prosecution end before the judgment on the merits has been defined;however,due to the principle of "Non Bis in Idem",the enactment of these end points have been limited;that is to say,under the conditions of procedure merely proceeding without an end and the defendant probably obtains verdict of innocence,the prosecuting party’s procedure violation,invading the defendant’s procedure rights seriously can cause the end of the prosecution before the judgment on the merits.In the sixth charpter,the application of the regulations of protection against repeated prosecution in the prosecution procedure is involved.Firstly,the issue that the repeated prosecution may exist in certain sections of the procedure of criminal prosecution procedure has been discussed vertically and horizontally.It is concluded that the repeated prosecution does not exist in the phase of review and indictment in a vertical view;the repeated prosecution after the lawsuit withdrawing of the public prosecution organ in the first instance is exclusive to the person who withdraws the lawsuit because of the insufficient evidence,the new prosecution after which forms a repeated prosecution;the prosecution modification by the prosecuting party in the first instance cannot cause a repeated prosecution;in the procedure of the second instance,the demurrer of the prosecuting party to the verdict of innocence cannot cause a repeated prosecution;the "comprehensive inspection" of the court responsible for the second instance cannot be regarded as the repeated prosecution but the modification of the court responsible for the second instance to the accusation confirmed in the first instance may cause the repeated prosecution depending on the specific conditions;the new trial for a lawsuit remanded in the second instance due to the unclear facts and insufficient evidence can cause the repeated prosecution;if the repeated prosecution caused in the second instance conforms to the conditions of retrial,it can be regarded as the exception to the protection against repeated prosecution;a second prosecution after the end of the first prosecution causes the repeated prosecution.From the horizontal view,the divided prosecution will cause the repeated prosecution;the system with the coexistence of the public prosecution and private prosecution may cause the repeated prosecution as well.Secondly,the repeated prosecution regulation in accordance with the protection against repeated prosecution,the regulation to overlapped and continuous repeated prosecutions have been discussed also.In the seventh charpter,the exceptions to the rules on the protection against repeated prosecution in the two law systems were compared and analyzed.The two exceptions of advantageous retrial and disadvantageous retrial in the German law system were recommended to set up,and the "new fact and evidence" was introduced as exceptional conditions for disadvantageous retrial with reference to the reform of the British Criminal Justice Act 2003,however,strict restriction shall be exerted.Meanwhile,the author thinks that the system that the prosecution of the prosecuting party shall only be included as exceptional cases in the Anglo-American law system is not suitable for the countries adopting the continental law system,because it may break the right structure featured by bureaucratic judiciary,weaken the restriction to the exercise of judicial power of the first trial court,and conflict with the judicial hierarchy system and the functions of the continental law system.In the eighth charpter,the establishment and application of the protection against repeated prosecution rule in China were discussed.Firstly the necessity and feasibility of this rule were proved.As indicated,it is the judicial principle that "seeking truth from facts and correcting the mistake whenever discovered" causes repeated prosecution in law execution. As a result,the establishment of this rule is unavoidable with the advancing of the law system reform in China.And the feasibility of establishment of this rule in China was proved based on the inner compatibility,concept innovation,technology innovation and other aspects of Chinese traditional culture,which are displayed in the values of this rule.The author proposed some ideas and advices on application model and establishment detail of this rule,including the protection against repeated prosecution model on the basis of the "Non Bis in Idem" in the broad sense while borrowing the Procedural Sanction and Preventive Procedural Guarantee concepts from the Anglo-American law system,and opinions on setting the start and end of prosecution were also put forward.The author also stated opinions on identity criteria in three aspects.First,ideal identity criteria shall be capable of protecting legitimate interests of the defendant in terms of defense and demurrer in a wide scope.Therefore,a wide scope shall be adopted for identity,and the object of trial shall be determined based on the prosecution of prosecuting party,and can only be changed within the scope of identity by the prosecuting party if necessary during the prosecution while the court can not privately change the object of trial or sentence beyond the scope of the object of trial determined by the prosecuting party, which means that the principle of indivisibility in terms of trial shall be abolished,and the suit model of court control shall be replaced by that under the adversary system.Second,the principle of indivisibility in terms of prosecution shall be remained to avoid divided prosecution by the prosecuting party,which will be of importance when the court can only judge and sentence within the prosecution scope of the prosecuting party after the principle of indivisibility in terms of trial is abolished.Third,the author recommended the standard of judging mainly basing on the "identification of basic facts",aided by the legal review of identity in the continental law system,and a wider scope of identity shall be adopted to ensure legitimate interests in terms of demurrer for the defendant.The principle of indivisibility in terms of trial featured by court control shall be abolished to avoid divided prosecution by the prosecuting party,while the principle of indivisibility in terms of prosecution shall be maintained as the duty and responsibility of the prosecuting party on the premise of the "possibility of simultaneous prosecution".Under the cases without such possibility,if it falls into an exception to the protection against repeated prosecution,then second prosecution and trial shall be allowed.The author also brought forward some suggestions on the reform of retrial system.更多还原