被告訴訟權與性侵害被害人保護的失衡──評司法院釋字第789號解釋

Reversing the Imbalance Between Defendant's Right of Fair Trial and the Protection of Sexual Assault Victim: Reviewing the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 789

為兼顧被告訴訟權與性犯罪被害人的保護，司法院釋字第789號解釋對性侵害犯罪防治法第17條第1款進行合憲性限縮解釋，要求法院適用該條時必須嚴格審查必要性，一旦引入審判外陳述，在審判中必須給予被告衡平補償，包括提供被告對於其他證人的對質詰問機會，並以其他證據補強被害人的警詢陳述，法院不得以被害人之警詢陳述作為被告有罪判決之唯一或主要證據。本文認為，這號解釋雖然注意到性侵害犯罪防治法第17條第1款的立法缺陷，卻因為大法官刻意限縮本號解釋的影響範圍，給了檢察官於訴訟上改用刑事訴訟法第159條之3，規避這號解釋的機會。這號解釋因此讓證據法則的適用更加混亂，也錯失引領立法者整體修正傳聞例外的機會。更重要的是，本號解釋雖然立意良善，但是大法官卻為性侵害案件建立不合理的證據門檻，反而阻礙了被害人獲得正義的機會。它給被害人因為創傷不到庭作證的可能性，看起來保護了性侵害案件的被害人，但是給了控方不合理的證據負擔。倘若檢察官無法提出其他可以證明被告犯罪的直接證據，這個案子很容易無法定罪甚至起訴。實質來說，司法院釋字第789號解釋因此達不到其所宣稱的目的，不是一個持平地兼顧被告訴訟權與性犯罪被害人的保護的大法官解釋。

In order to save the victim from being traumatized by testifying at trial, and to protect defendant's right of fair trial, the J.Y. Interpretation No. 789 confirms the legitimacy of the Article 17, Subparagraph 1 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act, but sets up additional evidential requirement for this particular statute. According to this Interpretation, the out-of-court statement made by the sex crime victim before the police could no longer be used as the only or the decisive evidence, if the defendant could not cross examine the victim at trial. While acknowledging the best intention of the Justices of the Constitutional Court, this paper argues that Justices unnecessarily constrain the effect of this Interpretation to the Article 17 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act. As a result, the loopholes of the hearsay rule in the current Criminal Procedural Code could not be corrected. Prosecutors could easily bypass the requirements set up by the J.Y. Interpretation No. 789, because there is similar, but no additional requirements attached statute available. More importantly, this Interpretation increases the burden of proof for the prosecutor. Only when the prosecutor is able to proffer evidence other than the victim's out-of-court statement as the decisive evidence for the case can the court convict the defendant. Considering victim's statement generally plays a decisive role in sex crime prosecution, this inflexible evidential rule unfairly hinders the prosecution for sex crimes.