評析司法院釋字第789號解釋：兼論供述證據信用性之判斷

Reviewing J.Y. Interpretation No. 789 and Rethinking the Credibility and Reliability of Victims’Statement

司法院釋字第789號解釋認為性侵害犯罪防治法第17條第1款有關被害人警詢陳述得為證據之規定目的正當，但為了平衡被告防禦權的潛在損失，需有程序上以及證據評價上的衡平措施。本文除了評析本號解釋的具體意涵之外，並根據本號解釋探討該規定要件在從嚴解釋下所可能衍生而出的釋義學問題。本號解釋雖然要求在證據評價上被害人警詢陳述僅能當成「次要證據」，但若內涵不清晰恐有淪為空談之疑慮。另一方面，本號解釋要求「有其他補強證據以支持警詢陳述所涉犯罪事實之真實性」，然此處的補強證據意涵究竟為信用性補強或真實性補強？在理論基礎上並不明確。本文認為，應辨明在證明力層次裡信用性（憑信性及可靠性）與狹義證明力概念之差異，對被告而言，對不利證人的反詰問得以釐清證人供述於觀察、記憶或陳述表現上信用性高低，因此，作為欠缺反詰問的補償措施，應將上述補強證據定性為輔助增強供述信用性，而非補強真實性；而實務上針對供述證據本身發展出的超法規補強法則，應為真實性之補強。最後，本文參考學理上有關供述信用性的類型上判斷準則，分別從證人特性、觀察、記憶、陳述表現等面向勾勒出可供我國未來參酌的方向。

"The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) issued Interpretation No. 789 at the end of February 2020 regarding the constitutionality of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act (SACPA). TCC said SACPA§17I, which regards a sexual assault victim statement in front of police officers as a hearsay exception, is not unconstitutional. However, in order to complement the defendant’s defense, several balancing measures are needed, such as to consider the victim’s statement as a“secondary evidence”or to make supplementary evidences required to support the truthfulness of the fact stated by the victim. This article analyses the issues that may arise from a strict interpretation of SACPA§17I and argues that since cross-examination could examine the credibility and the reliability of witness statements, the supplementary evidences, as a remedy for lack of interrogation, should be used as evidences that aid in enhancing also the credibility and the reliability of the statements, rather than supporting the truthfulness of the fact stated by the victim. The difference between the concept of credibility (and reliability) and the concept of probative value, which means evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something existed should be distinguished in the level of evidence. On the other hand, however, the meaning of so-called“corroborative evidence”cited in Interpretation No. 789 should be considered as the reinforcement of the credibility and reliability of the statements, not as the direct reinforcement of truthfulness. We need another“corroborative evidence”to support the truthfulness of the facts because of the risk of wrongful conviction which oral statement shall cause generally. Finally, this article outlines the criteria for determining credibility of a victim statement as an evidence referring to the criteria related to the credibility of confessions, and outlines the directions for the future consideration from the aspects of witness characteristics, observation, memory, and statement performance."