論無證據能力的證據－－兼評我國的證據能力規則

On Evidences without Competence: A Review on China's Rules of Evidence Competence

“無證據能力的證據”這一概念在證據法學研究尤其是在關於證據能力問題的研究中顯得分外重要，是研究證據能力問題時一道繞不過的“坎”。在我國證據法學研究體系中，提出並研究“無證據能力的證據”這一概念，還有著更強的現實意義和針對性。對於我國刑事訴訟法和司法解釋中規定的“無證據能力的證據”，可以根據不同的角度和標準，將其區分為如下不同類型：完全無證據能力和受限制無證據能力的證據；全部無證據能力的證據和部分無證據能力的證據；絕對無證據能力的證據和相對無證據能力的證據；因無關聯性而無證據能力的證據和因無合法性而無證據能力的證據。我國關於證據能力的立法和司法解釋具有以下幾個特點：相對全面性和一定的進步性；本土化特徵突出；實用性強而體系化不足。影響或者說決定證據之證據能力的主要因素：一是證據的關聯性；二是證據的合法性。但來源不明、明顯缺乏可靠性的物證、書證，也應當歸入無證據能力的證據的範疇。同時，我國個別證據規則對證據能力的設定過於嚴苛，阻礙了部分證據進入訴訟程序。為此，應當強化立法、規範用語並降低證據的准入門檻。

The concept of 'evidences without competence' is very important in the study of evidence law, especially in the study of evidence competence, and it can't be sidestepped. In China's evidence law research system, the concept of 'evidences without competence' has a more realistic meaning and pertinence. The articles of 'evidences without competence' in China's Criminal Procedural Law and judicial interpretations can be classified into the following types according to different angles and standards: completely or limited without competence; entirely or partly without competence; absolutely or relatively without competence; relevancecaused or legality-caused without competence. Some characteristics of evidence competence articles exist in China's law and judicial interpretation, which are comprehensiveness and advancement, prominent indigenization and outstanding practicability but lack of coherence. The main two factors deciding the evidence competence are relevance and legality. However, those evidences which have uncertain source and lack of reliability should belong to evidences without competence, too. Meanwhile, some evidence rules are too severe to be accepted into procedure. To solve these problems, the legislation should be strengthened, the language of law should be normalized and the admittance threshold should be lowered.