檢察官訊問筆錄與傳聞法則──最高法院相關刑事判決簡評

Prosecutor-Examined-Statements and Hearsay Rule

雖然釋字第五八二號確認了憲法位階的對質詰問權，在實務操作下，檢訊筆錄作為傳聞例外的問題關鍵，不是筆錄作成時未存在足以保障反對詰問權的機制，而是以此等審判外的傳聞作為證據，始終欠缺可信為真實的擔保。就此，儘管實務透過「已否具結」，將檢訊筆錄予以類型化，並透過不同要件進行傳聞例外的審查，本文仍認為，不論證人於審判中所為陳述是否與檢訊筆錄相符，均無從單憑被告已行使反對詰問權，即得遽謂審判外之先前陳述因此即具有證據能力。並且，是否要求陳述者具結，對檢察官而言係偵查方式的選擇，即便未經具結，如存在足以擔保可信性的特別情況，亦可能容許作為傳聞法則的例外。於偵查中以證人身分為陳述且具結的情形，不過滿足了刑事訴訟法的法定要件而已，無法反面推論此陳述已滌除其傳聞性，進而擔保可信性，而一舉成為傳聞例外！

According to Taiwan’s practice, the prosecutor’s record of interrogation is the key to hearsay rule exceptions, and the mechanism to safeguard the right of objectional examination will be insufficient when no record has been made. When this type of hearsay outside of trial is used as evidence, reliable assurance that this evidence is true is entirely lost. This paper believes that regardless of whether the accounts given by witnesses at a trial are consistent with the prosecutor’s record of interrogation, there are no grounds for relying solely on the fact that the defendant has already exercised the right of objectional examination to hastily claim that prior accounts outside of the trial possess evidential ability. In addition, whether or not a declarant is required to take an oath is an investigative choice for the prosecutor, and even when a declarant is not required to take an oath, as in cases when special situations exist, it may possibly be permissible to make this a hearsay rule exception. When a statement is made and an oath taken in the witnesss identity during an investigation, this merely satisfies the statutory elements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and we cannot use reverse inference to rule out the hearsay character of the statement, ensure its reliability, and make it hearsay exception!