認罪認罰案件中的“整體性量刑建議觀”反思

理論界和實務界普遍認為，《刑事訴訟法》第201條中的“量刑建議”是針對整個案件全部情節的量刑建議，即采整體性量刑建議觀。整體性量刑建議觀是導致認罪認罰案件量刑建議採納問題認識分歧的重要原因之一。從認罪認罰過程看，認為整個量刑建議均是合意結果不符合客觀實際，與刑事訴訟基本規律相悖，難以協調立法目的和權力調整的合法性之間的矛盾，和認罪認罰作為獨立量刑情節的立法體系也不兼容。應改采認罪認罰情節量刑建議觀，即《刑事訴訟法》第201條中的“量刑建議”是針對認罪認罰情節的量刑建議。在認罪認罰情節量刑建議觀下，第201條第1款“一般應當”中的“一般”不具有實質內涵。法院採納認罪認罰情節量刑建議的標準是合法性標準，而非合理性標準，只要不存在第201條第1款但書規定情形，法院就應當採納，反之，則屬“明顯不當”，此時法院僅承擔告知義務，未履行告知義務而徑行裁判屬嚴重影響公正審判的情形，應依法予以糾正。

Both theoretical scholarship and judicial practice generally hold that the term“sentencing recommendation”in Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law refers to a recommendation covering all aspects of the case as a whole, that is, a holistic sentencing recommendation approach. This approach is one of the principal sources of disagreement regarding whether sentencing recommendations should be adopted in cases involving guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment. From the perspective of the guilty plea and punishment acceptance process, treating the entire sentencing recommendation as the product of agreement does not accord with objective reality. Moreover, the holistic sentencing recommendation approach runs counter to the basic logic of criminal procedure, makes it difficult to reconcile legislative objectives with the legitimacy of power allocation, and is incompatible with the legislative framework that treats guilty plea and acceptance of punishment as an independent sentencing circumstance. Accordingly, the sentencing recommendation-for-the-guilty-plea-circumstance approach should be adopted. Under this approach, the“sentencing recommendation”in Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law refers specifically to a sentencing recommendation concerning the circumstance of guilty plea and acceptance of punishment. Within this framework, the term“generally”in Article 201(1) (“generally shall”) lacks substantive normative content. As long as the sentencing recommendation relating to the guilty plea and acceptance of punishment satisfies the requirement of legality, rather than reasonableness—namely, where none of the circumstances specified in the proviso to Article 201(1) are present—the court should adopt the recommendation. Where any of the circumstances set out in the proviso to Article 201(1) do exist, the case constitutes a situation of“manifest impropriety,”and the court should not adopt the sentencing recommendation. In such circumstances, the court is required to fulfill its duty to inform the relevant parties. A failure to perform this duty, followed by a direct adjudication, constitutes a serious infringement on the fairness of the trial and should be subject to correction.