2014年1月27日 星期一

Taiwan Extradition Law 引渡法

引渡法 
1.中華民國四十三年四月十七日總統制定公布全文 26
2.中華民國六十九年七月四日總統令修正公布第 15182022 條條文
Taiwan Extradition Law
Amended Date       1980.07.04
      
1        
引渡依條約,無條約或條約無規定者,依本法之規定。
   
Article 1         
Extradition shall be effected in accordance with treaties. Where there are no treaties or no provisions applicable to a case in existing treaties, the provisions of this Law shall prevail.

2        
凡於請求國領域犯罪,依中華民國及請求國法律規定均應處罰者,得准許引渡。但中華民國法律規定法定最重本刑為一年以下有期徒刑之刑者,不在此限。
凡於請求國及中華民國領域犯罪,依兩國法律規定均應處罰者,得准許引渡。但中華民國法律規定法定最重本刑為一年以下有期徙刑之刑者,不在此限。
Article 2         
Extradition may be approved if the offense is committed within the territory of the country making requisition therefore and if it is punishable both under the laws of the Republic of China and those of the country making such requisition; provided, that this shall not apply where under the laws of the Republic of China the maximum basic punishment for such offense is a punishment of imprisonment for not more than one year or higher.
Extradition may be approved if the offense is committed outside the territory of the country making requisition therefore and that of the Republic of China and if it is punishable under the laws of both of the two countries, provided, that this shall not apply where under the laws of the Republic of China the maximum basic punishment for the offense committed is a punishment of imprisonment for not more than one year or higher.

3        
犯罪行為具有軍事、政治、宗教性時,得拒絕引渡。但左列行為不得視為政治性之犯罪:
一、故意殺害國家元首或政府要員之行為。
二、共產黨之叛亂活動。
Article 3         
Extradition may be refused if the act of offense is of military, political or religious nature; provided, that the following acts may not be considered as political offenses:
1. Murder with intent of a foreign chief of state or a senior member of a foreign government;
2. Act of rebellion of the Communists.

4        
請求引渡之人犯,為中華民國國民時,應拒絕引渡。但該人犯取得中華民國國籍在請求引渡後者不在此限。
中華民國國民在外國領域內犯本法第二條及第三條但書所定之罪,於拒絕外國政府引渡之請求時,應即移送該管法院審理。
Article 4         
Extradition shall be refused if the person whose surrender is requested for is a citizen of the Republic of China; provided, that this shall not apply if the person acquired the citizenship after the requisition for extradition is made.
A citizen of the Republic of China who commits an offense specified in the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of this Law in the territory of a foreign country shall, after the requisition for extradition made by a foreign government is refused, be referred to a court which has jurisdiction over the case for trial.

5        
請求引渡之犯罪,業經中華民國法院不起訴,或判決無罪、免刑、免訴、不受理,或已判處罪刑,或正在審理中,或已赦免者,應拒絕引渡。
請求引渡之人犯另犯他罪,已繫屬中華民國法院者,其引渡應於訴訟程序終結或刑罰執行完畢後為之。
Article 5         
Extradition shall be refused if the offense for which the requisition for extradition is made has received a ruling of not to prosecute, or a judgment of not guilty, remission of punishment, exempt from prosecution or case not entertained, or a judgment imposing a sentence from, or if the case is being tried by, a court of the Republic of China, or if the offense has been pardoned.
If the person whose surrender is requested for commits another offense and is being accused in a court of the Republic of China, the extradition thereof shall be effected after the legal proceedings have been concluded or the execution of punishment has been completed.

6        
數國對同一人犯請求引渡,而依條約或本法應為允許時,依左列順序定其解交之國:
一、依條約提出請求引渡之國。
二、數請求國均為締約國或均非締約國時,解交於犯罪行為地國。
三、數請求國均為締約國或均非締約國,而無一國為犯罪行為地國時,解交於犯人所屬國。
四、數締約國或數非締約國請求引渡,而指控之罪名不同者,解交於最重犯罪行為地國;其法定刑度輕重相同者,解交於首先正式請求引渡之國。
Article 6         
If more than one country make requisition for extradition of one and the same accused and approval should be granted in accordance with treaties or with the provisions of this Law, the following provisions shall be observed in their order of precedence in determining to which country the accused should be delivered up:
1.The country making requisition for extradition in accordance with existing treaties;
2.When all the countries making requisition are contracting parties to or are not contracting parties to, extradition treaties with the Republic of China, the accused shall be delivered up to the country within whose jurisdiction the offense took place;
3.When all the countries making requisition are contracting parties to, or are not contracting parties to, extradition treaties with the Republic of China, and none of such countries is locus criminis, the accused shall be delivered up to the country of which he is a subject;

4.When extradition is requested for by several countries who are contracting parties to, or are not contracting parties to, extradition treaties with the Republic of China, but the offenses with which the accused is charged differ, he shall be delivered up to the country presenting the most severe charge of offense; if the degree of severity of the punishments are all the same, the accused shall be delivered up to the country which first made the formal requisition for extradition.

7        
請求國非經中華民國政府同意,不得追訴或處罰引渡請求書所載以外之犯罪。但引渡之人犯,在請求國之訴訟程序終結或刑罰執行完畢後,尚自願留居已達九十日以上者,不在此限。
引渡人犯於引渡後,在請求國另犯他罪者,該請求國仍得追訴或處罰之。
Article 7         
Without the consent of the Government of the Republic of China, the country to which an accused is delivered up may not prosecute or punish an offense other than that specified in the written requisition for extradition; provided, that this shall not apply if the person voluntarily chosed to remain for ninety (90) days or more in that country after the conclusion of legal proceedings or the completion of the execution of punishment.

After a person has been extradited, if he commits another offense within the jurisdiction of the country to which he was delivered up, that country may prosecute or punish him accordingly.

8        
請求國非經中華民國政府同意,不得將引渡之人犯再引渡與第三國。但引渡之人犯有前條第一項但書之情形者,不在此限。
Article 8         

Without the consent of the Government of the Republic of China, a country to which an accused is delivered up may not surrender him to a third country; provided, that this shall not apply in the circumstance specified in the provision of paragraph 1 of the preceding article.

9        
引渡之請求,循外交途徑向外交部為之。
Article 9         

A requisition for extradition shall be made to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through diplomatic channels.

10              
外國政府請求引渡時,應提出引渡請求書,記載左列事項:
一、人犯之姓名、性別、年齡、籍貫、職業、住所或居所,或其他足資辨別之特徵。
二、犯罪事實及證據並所犯法條。
三、請求引渡之意旨及互惠之保證。
四、關於遵守第七條第一項前段及第八條前段所定限制之保證。
Article 10               
A requisition for extradition from a foreign government shall be in writing, stating the following matters:
1.The name, sex, age, native place, occupation, domicile or residence, or other features of identification of the accused;
2.The facts and evidences of the offense and articles of the law violated;
3.Intent of requisition for extradition and assurance of reciprocity;

4. Assurance to observe the limitations specified in the first part of paragraph 1 of Article 7 and the first part of Article 8.

11              
提出引渡請求書應附具左列文件:
一、引渡請求書內所引之證據。
二、請求國該管法院之拘票及起訴書或有罪判決書。
三、請求國有關處罰該罪之現行法規。
前項文件應經合法簽證,其以外國文作成者,並附經簽證之中文譯本。
Article 11               
A written requisition for extradition shall be accompanied by the following documents:
1.Evidences referred to in the written requisition for extradition;
2.A warrant for arrest of the accused, an indictment or conviction in writing, issued by the court which has jurisdiction over the case in the country making the requisition for extradition;
3.Existing laws or statutes relating to the punishment of the offense of the country making the requisition for extradition.

The documents specified in the preceding paragraph shall be duly authenticated; if the documents are in a foreign language, they shall be accompanied by duly authenticated Chinese translations.

12              
外國政府於提出引渡請求書前,遇有緊急情形,得以函電請求拘提羈押所擬引渡之人犯。但應載明第十條所列事項,及已起訴或判決有罪之事實。
前項情形,其提出引渡請求書,應自羈押人犯之日起三十日內為之,逾期應即撤銷羈押,並不得再就同一案件請求引渡。
Article 12               
In case of emergency, a foreign government may, before presenting the written requisition for extradition, request by correspondence or cablegram the arrest and detention of the person to be extradited. However, the correspondence or cablegram shall state the matters listed in Article 10 and the fact that a public prosecution has been brought against such person or that a judgment of guilty has been pronounced.

In the circumstance specified in the preceding paragraph, the written requisition for extradition shall be presented within thirty (30) days from the date the accused is detained, failing which the detention shall be cancelled, and no requisition for extradition may be made on the same case.

13              
被請求引渡人之財物、文件並經請求扣押時,應記載其品名、數量予以保管,於引渡之請求獲准後,與人犯一併解交。但屬於第三人所有或依中華民國法律不得扣押者,不在此限。
Article 13               

If a request for attachment of the properties and documents is made along with the requisition for extradition, such properties and documents shall be taken into custody with their descriptions and quantities noted, to be delivered up with the accused when the extradition is approved; provided, that this rule shall not apply to those which are owned by a third party or which may not be attached under the law of the Republic of China.

14              
外國政府間引渡人犯,於徵得中華民國政府之同意後,得通過中華民國領域。但人犯之通過,有妨礙中華民國利益之虞時,得不准許之。
Article 14               

A person extradited by one foreign government at the request of another may be allowed to pass through the territory of the Republic of China with the prior consent of the Government of the Republic of China; provided, that such consent may be refused if it is apprehended the passage may jeopardize the interests of the Republic of China.

15              
外交部收到引渡之請求後,應連同有關文件,送請法務部發交人犯所在地之地方法院檢察處辦理。如人犯所在不明時,應發交適當之地方法院檢察處辦理。
Article 15               

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, upon receiving a requisition for Extradition, must forward the same, together with other relevant documents to Ministry of Justice for relegation to the District Prosecutors' Office having jurisdiction over the accused's residence, where the accused's present location is unknown, the case must be referred to the appropriate District Prosecutors' Office.

16              
該管法院檢察處,受理請求引渡之案件後,檢察官依刑事訴訟法之規定,對於人犯得命拘提羈押。
Article 16               

A duty prosecutor may, according to the provisions specified in the Criminal Procedural Code, give an order to apprehend and hold in custody the accused who is requested to be extradited so far as the cognizant Prosecutors' Office upon receiving the case of requisition for extradition.

17              
人犯到場後,檢察官應於二十四小時內加以訊問,告以請求引渡之內容,並儘速將案件移送法院。
法院受理前項移送案件後,依刑事訴訟法之規定,對於人犯得命拘提羈押。
Article 17               
The prosecutor shall interrogate the accused within twenty-four (24) hours after he is arrested, inform him of the requisition for extradition, and forward the case as soon as possible to the court.

The court, upon receiving the case specified in the preceding paragraph, may issue a warrant to apprehend and hold in custody the accused in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

18              
法院收到請求引渡之案件後,應將請求引渡之事實證據,告知被請求引渡人,並命被請求引渡人於告知之日起六十日內提出答辯書。
Article 18               

The court shall, after receiving a case of requisition for extradition, inform the accused of the facts and evidences of the case, and order him to submit a reply in writing within sixty (60) days.

19              
被請求引渡人得選任律師為辯護人,其程序準用刑事訴訟法關於選任辯護之規定。
Article 19               

An accused may employ lawyers as advocates. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in regard to employment of advocates shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure of such employment.

20              
第十二條第二項及第十八條規定之期間屆滿時,法院應即指定期日,通知檢察官、被請求引渡人及其辯護人為言詞辯論。
法院應於言詞辯論終結後五日內制作決定書,敘述應否准許引渡。
請求引渡之案件,法院應於收到被請求引渡人答辯書後三十日內終結之。
Article 20               
Upon expiration of the period specified in paragraph 2 of Article 12 and in Article 18, the court shall set a date and notify the prosecutor, the accused and his advocate for oral proceedings.

The court shall prepare a decision within five (5) days after the conclusion of oral proceedings, stating whether extradition should be approved. The court shall conclude a case of requisition for extradition within thirty (30) days after receipt of the reply in writing of the accused.

21              
法院制作決定書後,應將案件送由檢察處報請法務部移送外交部陳請行政院核請總統核定之。
不能依第六條之規定定解交國時,亦應於決定書內敘明呈請總統決定之。
Article 21               
The court in charge, as soon as a written resolution is made, must have the case, with all papers pertinent thereto, report, through Prosecutors' Office, to the Ministry of Justice, to be eventually forwarded to Ministry of Foreign Affairs for transmittal to Executive Yuan, thence submitted to the President for a Presidential Resolution.

If a court cannot decide to which country the accused should be delivered up in accordance with the provision of Article 6,it shall be so stated in the written decision for final decision by the President.

22              
總統准許引渡時,該管法院檢察處於接獲法務部函知後,應即通知被請求引渡人。
總統拒絕引渡時,該管法院檢察處應即撤銷羈押,請求國不得再就同一案件請求引渡。
Article 22               
If extradition is approved by the President, the cognizant Prosecutors' Office shall, after the receipt of the order from the Ministry of Justice, notify the accused thereof as soon as possible.

If the extradition is refused by the President, the cognizant Prosecutors' Office shall revoke the detention. The country making the requisition may not thereafter make requisition for extradition on the same case.

23              
外交部應將准許引渡之事由,通知請求國政府,指定人員於六十日內在中華民國領域內最適當之地點接受引渡。
請求國未於前項期間內指定人員將人犯接收押離中華民國領域者,被請求引渡人應即釋放,請求國嗣後不得再就同一案件提出請求。
Article 23             
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall notify the foreign government making the requisition of the approval for extradition, asking it to assign personnel to receive the accused at a place deemed most appropriate in the territory of the Republic of China within a period of sixty (60) days.

If the country making the requisition fails to assign personnel to receive the accused and escort him out of the territory of the Republic of China within the period specified in the preceding paragraph, the accused shall forthwith be released. The country making the requisition may not thereafter request for extradition of the person on the same case.

24              
引渡,由行政院指派人員執行之。
Article 24               
Extradition shall be executed by personnel assigned by the Executive Yuan.
25              
因請求引渡所生之費用,不問引渡是否准許,均由請求國負擔。
Article 25               
All expenses arising from the requisition for extradition shall be borne by the country making the requisition, regardless of whether the extradition is approved or not.

26              
本法自公布日施行。
Article 26               


This Law shall become effective from the date of its promulgation.

Wanli YANG

2014年1月25日 星期六

公訴筆記認罪協商

認罪協商
<認罪協商雜記 >(note of American-style plea bargining)  
A. Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978)
Q:uestionDoes the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit state prosecutors from carrying out a threat made during plea negotiations to re-indict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged?
Conclusion:No.
判決書非常非常慎重的指出:PB出自檢辯雙方爲了避免審判的相互的利益(the mutuality of advantage),為了鼓勵協商法院必須接受「檢方的利益在於說服被告放棄無罪抗辯的權利」這種簡單的現實(The prosecutor has a legitimate interest in persuading a defendant to relinquish his or her right to plead not guilty.)。檢察官有著廣泛的自由裁量權,只要不是故意違反公正的基本標準,諸如因為種族、信仰而有所偏私,執法中「有意識的選擇」將是合憲的。但法官也認識到,這樣的裁量權有淺在被濫用的可能,因此,檢方裁量權的運用必須遵守一定的憲法限制,Stewart法官認為,檢察官的行為仍要符合憲法第14修正案正當程式條款的要求。本案檢方此裁量權的運用並不違憲。
Q:本案檢察官乃以認罪換取較輕度刑,來避面累犯法典的運用,所以倘被告不認罪,將被依據累犯法典起訴而面對無期徒刑,本案法院認為這樣的裁量權運用並不違憲。但,又落入了另一個問題,也就是立法機構有意授權檢察官可以藉由認罪協商來迴避累犯法典的運用嗎?答案顯然是肯定的,但是問題是妥適嗎?

附註:台灣法院辦理刑事訴訟協商程序案件應行注意事項 (作為醒目的對比)
七 (不得為協商判決之情形 (一) )刑訴法第455條之4第1項第3款所謂「合意顯有不當」,例如:被告雖已認罪,惟法院認應諭知無罪之情形。又第5款所謂「法院認定之事實顯與協商合意之事實不符者」....
八 (不得為協商判決之情形 (二) )....如被告係犯數罪,且有裁判上一罪關係,而被告僅就較輕之犯罪事實認罪者,因被告尚有其他較重之犯罪事實....法院即不得為協商判決;如被告所犯數罪應分論併罰,雖有部分犯罪係屬4款不得聲請協商判決者,法院仍得就其他部分犯罪為協商判決,惟協商合意內容含「被告願受緩刑宣告」之情形,而嗣後應依刑法第75條第1項第2款撤銷緩刑宣告者,可認有....「合意顯有不當」之事由,即不宜為協商判決。

B. U.S. v. Pollard (D.C. Cir)
Issue: Are wired pleas unconstitutional? 人的包裹式認罪,是否合憲?
D claimed the gov’t coerced his guilty plea by linking his wife’s plea to his own. 檢方要求被告及共犯被告之妻ㄧ起認罪。
Holding:“Where as here, the gov’t had probable cause to arrest and prosecute both defendants in a related crime, and there is no suggestion that the government conducted itself in bad faith in an effort to generate additional leverage over the D, we think a wired plea is constitutional.”
判決審查的步驟:ccp12211)、plea wiring does not violate the Constitution.2)、第二步,適用voluntary rule. Check if porsecutors act in good faith.法院在判決中做了正反的假設,並且指出倘若認定違憲的結果,亦未必有利於整個共犯結構獲取更輕的刑度,這樣的假設性認定的論證方式,較少見於台灣判決書中。而且與其討論合憲性問題,不若說這是道德與倫理議題的取決。
C. Newton v Rumery: 1987
爭點在於檢辯間針對檢察官利用 "release-dismissal agreements"換取被告放棄其對政府提出民事賠償訴訟(警察不法行為)的權利,而不對被告提出控訴,是否違法? 美國聯邦最高法院認為不違法,不過日後學者對此等特定的認罪協商合約也抱著頗為懷疑的態度。
Fact: After learning that a friend, David Champy, had been indicted by a New Hampshire county grand jury for aggravated felonious sexual assault, respondent sought more information from a mutual acquaintance, who coincidently was the victim of the assault and was expected to be the principal witness against Champy. The victim called the town of Newton's Chief of Police and told him that respondent was trying to force her to drop the charges against Champy. Respondent was arrested and accused of the state-law felony of tampering with a witness. Respondent's attorney and the prosecutor negotiated an agreement whereby the prosecutor would dismiss the charges against him if he would agree to release any claims he might have against the town, its officials, or the victim for any harm caused by his arrest. Three days later, he signed the "release-dismissal agreement," and the criminal charges against him were dropped. Ten months later, he filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Federal District Court, alleging that the town and its officers had violated his constitutional rights by arresting him, defaming him, and imprisoning him falsely.
1. The question whether the policies underlying § 1983 (Civil Rights Act 1871) may in some circumstances render a waiver of the right to sue thereunder unenforceable is one of federal law, to be resolved by reference to traditional common-law principles. The relevant principle is that a promise is unenforceable if the interest in its enforcement is outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy harmed by enforcement of the agreement. .2. Although in some cases release-dimissal agreements may infringe important interests of the criminal defendant and of society as a whole, the mere possibility of harm to such interests does not call for a per se rule invalidating all such agreements. The risk, publicity, and expense of a criminal...( The term "release-dismissal agreement" encompasses any agreement between a public prosecutor and a potential criminal defendant in which the prosecutor agrees to dismiss or reduce criminal charges in consideration for the defendant releasing a civil rights claim against the police or other government officials. )

D. US v Mezzanatto認罪協商程序中被告之陳述,在協商沒有成立之後,被檢方用來彈劾,仍然可行。相關的案件尚有 US v Burch 1998。一篇文章以經濟分析角度來質疑:倘若認罪協商是契約的一種,那麼上開判決導致的結論將使認罪協商變成是「單方合約」,事實上讓檢方成為最大的贏家。

E.檢方違約時的救濟為何? Santobello v. NY案中法院僅表示檢方不能違約,但就救濟手段乏進一步的說明。另外,在Mabry v Johnson (1984) ㄧ案中,檢方第一次提出的條件,日後被告表示接受時,檢方卻發現其offer的第一次的條件有誤,而提出第二次的條件,被告對檢方第一次的offer的條件有無憲法上的權利呢?(要求檢方遵守第一次的條件?) 答案是:沒有。所以藉由這些案件必須對PB是合約一種這樣的說詞抱持著一定的懷疑。

F.運用上美式認罪協商側重的非僅只是要求被告認罪而已,更重要的是資訊的交換(例如,要求被告對共犯作證換取較輕的刑度等),配合著對先暫停量刑程序(postpone sentencing)等等方式的運用(例如,觀察被告對共犯作證時有無據實陳述,來作為給法官被告刑度意見的參考),其彈性與裁量權範圍遠比台灣檢方來得大。

By Wan-Li Yang
Fed. 20 2007

2014年1月23日 星期四

公訴筆記刑事上訴實務_準抗告

公訴筆記刑事上訴實務_準抗告
對合議庭案件,因受命法官請假,由代理之他庭個人法官(非合議庭)所為之處分(被告羈押案件移審時予交保),加以聲明異議(§288-3)或準抗告(§416),可能所涉之法律問題。

法定法官原則:
德國:
德國基本法第101條第1項明定法定法官原則。
中華民國:
憲法第8條、第16條、第80條及第81條等有關法治國原則、正當法律程序、人民訴訟權保障及審判獨立與法官身分保障等。釋字530號司法行政機關雖得發布司法行政命令,但不得影響或干預審判獨立。釋字第665號解釋。憲法第80條所保障之審判獨立,含個案「審判獨立」與訴訟程序整體免於「非本質干預」,包括個案繫屬於法院開始,到判決宣示的整體過程。(李惠宗,憲法要義,2008,頁560)
而"法定法官原則"即為維護審判獨立,乃人民享有司法授益權之前提。
刑事審判庭之組織,如同法院管轄,皆受法定法官原則之限制,不容刑事法院恣意變更而影響被告權益。刑事案件必須依預先確立之抽象標準,公平分配於法官審理。雖然我國法院組織法對於(狹義)法院組織之管轄事件範圍及程序並無直接規定,但審判庭之構成,必須如同案件管轄般,於分案時,即須確定,且須依抽象且明確之標準決定,不能任由法院於收案後,再依其意思決定。(何賴傑,刑事法院組織不合法之程序瑕疵─最高法院八十九年度台上字第一八七七號判決評釋─,臺灣本土法學31期,2002年2月,頁95~97)依此見解,法院若對於特定案件之分案方式,非依預先確立之抽象標準公平分配於法官審理,而以庭長會議之方式決定由何位法官審理,當是已違反基於法治國原則而來的法定法官原則之憲法誡命。

庭長會議所議決之併案或事務分配
既非終結該審級之判決,也非訴訟上處分之裁定,依現行法之規定,無可供救濟之管道,當事人只能隨同本案判決,以訴訟程序違背法令等事由,一併上訴救濟之,並於確定之終局裁判後,依司法院大法官審理案件法51條規定聲請釋憲。

更新審判程序:法律保留
刑事訴訟法第292、293之規定。 所謂更新審判程序即指廢棄先前已經進行過的程序,重新實行審判程序。

比例原則? 訴訟權、平等權、防止恣意原則
設若該案為殺人案件,被告在押,則所涉之被害法益為生命權,而被告在押所涉之侵害乃自由權之侵害,則原應由合議庭裁定交保之,是否適合由獨任法官以處分交保之,使原得抗告之案件,必須改以異議或準抗告為之?
(1)比例原則
(2)訴訟權:抗告與準抗告審級救濟方式具差異。
(3)平等原則:相同之事項,為何不同之處理。違反平等原則。[釋639不同意見書]。
(4)制度設計難以防止道德風險,且有恣意問題。


法律座談會
發文字號:臺灣高等法院暨所屬法院 99 年法律座談會刑事類提案 第 33 號
發文日期:民國 99 年 11 月 10 日
座談機關:臺灣高等法院暨所屬法院
資料來源:司法院 臺灣高等法院暨所屬法院 99 年法律座談會彙編(100年1月版)第 754-764 頁
相關法條:中華民國憲法 第 16、23、7、8 條 ( 36.01.01 ) 貪污治罪條例 第 5 條 ( 98.04.22 ) 刑事訴訟法 第 101-2、108、110、121、279、284-1、403、404、416、418 條 ( 99.06.23 )
法律問題:甲涉犯貪污治罪條例第 5 條第 1 項第 2 款之詐取財物罪,偵查中經檢察官向法院聲請羈押獲准,嗣經偵查終結,檢察官以甲涉犯上開罪嫌重 大,提起公訴,並將卷證及羈押中之被告即甲移送法院審理,經法院受理分案後,由 A(審判長)、B(陪席法官)、C(受命法官)組合議庭審理,起訴送審時,由受命法官 C 獨自 1 人訊問後,以被告甲雖犯罪嫌疑重大,惟無羈押之必要,諭知准被告甲以新臺幣 100 萬元具保,受命法官 C 獨自 1 人之具保決定是否合法
討論意見:
甲說:受命法官 C 獨自 1 人所為具保決定不合法。 
按依刑事訴訟法第 121 條第 1 項規定:「第 107 條第 1 項 之撤銷羈押、第 109 條之命具保、責付或限制住居、第 110 條 第 1 項、第 115 條及第 116 條之停止羈押、第 118 條第 1 項之沒入保證金、第 119 條第 2 項之退保,應以法院之裁定行 之。」於獨任案件,受命法官所為決定即為法院裁定,惟於合議案 件,合議庭三位法官所為決定,始為法院裁定,受命法官獨自 1 人所為決定,其性質為處分,非法院裁定。題示情形,依同法第 284 條之 1 規定係屬應行合議案件,故於諭命被告具保、責付或 限制住居停止羈押時,應經合議庭法官決議後始得為之,受命法官 不得未經合議庭決議即單獨諭知准予被告具保,故受命法官 C 獨 自 1 人所為具保決定不合法。
乙說:受命法官 C 獨自 1 人所為具保決定合法。 
(1)依刑事訴訟法第 108 條第 1 項、第 3 項、第 4 項、第 5 項規定在偵查與審判中不同審級之法院,各有不同羈押期間及不同 羈押期間之起算日,羈押具有程序之獨立性甚明。是以,被告在押起訴送法院審理之合議案件,經受命法官訊問後,認無羈押之必要 ,依刑事訴訟法第 101 條之 2 規定,命具保、責付或限制住居 ,非屬依刑事訴訟法第 110 條第 1 項規定所為之停止羈押,而係使被告免於羈押之決定,自得由受命法官單獨為之,其性質為處 分,如對之不服,應依刑事訴訟法第 416 條聲請所屬法院撤銷或 變更之,惟如以合議庭為具保、責付或限制住居,亦為法之所許( 最高法院 91 年度台非字第 193 號判決,臺灣高等法院高雄分院 93 年度抗字第 181 號裁定參照)。
(2)依刑事訴訟法第 121 條第 1 項規定命被告具保應以法院之裁定行之者,係指被告經諭知羈押(處分或裁定)確定後,命被告具保 停止羈押之情形而言,此由同條項規定第 107 條第 1 項之撤銷 羈押、第 109 條之命具保、責付或限制住居、第 110 條第 1 項、第 115 條及第 116 條之停止羈押等,均係於被告經法院諭 知羈押確定後,始得為之,即可得知。題示情形受命法官所為之具保決定,係被告為第一次羈押與否之決定,此與被告經法院諭知羈押後,命具保停止羈押之決定,尚有不同,自無刑事訴訟法第 121 條第 1 項規定之適用。
(3)按對於審判長、受命法官、受託法官所為關於具保之處分,得聲請所屬法院撤銷或變更之,刑事訴訟法第 416 條第 1 項第 1 款 定有明文,是合議案件之受命法官得為具保處分,否則上開規定即 同具文。
(4)依刑事訴訟法第 279 條第 1 項及第 2 項規定:「行合議審判 之案件,為準備審判起見,得以庭員 1 人為受命法官,於審判期 日前,使行準備程序」、「受命法官行準備程序,與法院或審判長 有同一之權限」,則受命法官於準備程序中係依合議庭之授權而行使審判權,是同法第 279 條、第 416 條第 1 項第 1 款有關受命法官得為關於羈押處分之規定,與憲法第 8 條文義相符,並 無牴觸憲法之疑義;刑事訴訟法第 416 條第 1 項第 1 款及第 418 條使羈押之被告僅得向原法院聲請撤銷或變更該處分,不得提起抗告之審級救濟,為立法機關基於訴訟迅速進行之考量所為合理之限制,未逾立法裁量之範疇,與憲法第 16 條、第 23 條尚無違背。且因向原法院聲請撤銷或變更處分之救濟仍係由依法獨立行使職權之審判機關作成決定,故已賦予人身自由遭羈押處分限制者合理之程序保障,尚不違反憲法第 8 條之正當法律程序。至於刑事 訴訟法第 403 條、第 404 條第 2 款、第 416 條第 1 項第 1 款與第 418 條之規定,使羈押被告之決定,得以裁定或處分之方式作成,並因而形成羈押之被告得否抗告之差別待遇,與憲法第 7 條保障之平等權尚無牴觸。業經司法院大法官會議釋字第 639 號解釋甚明,是合議案件,由被告經法官訊問後,認被告犯罪嫌疑 重大,合於法定羈押理由,而有羈押之必要者,得由受命法官為羈 押處分,既合於法律規定且未違憲,則舉重明輕,對被告權益侵害程度較小之具保決定,自無不許受命法官為具保處分之理。
(5)綜上所述,題示情形,由受命法官 C 獨自 1 人所為具保決定合 於法律規定。
初步研討結果: 全部採乙說(實到12位)。
審查意見:採甲說。 補充理由如下:法院合議庭審理案件,受命法官於訊問後,認無羈押之必要,諭知具保,其處分是否合法一案,核即為刑事訴 訟法第 120 條之具保,依同法第 121 條第 1 項後 段之規定,以法院之裁定行之。此項裁定,於合議審判 之案件,受命法官無權為之,最高法院 44 年台抗字第 80 號判例著有明文。
研討結果:採乙說(經付表決結果:實到 82 人,採甲說 16 票,採乙說 59 票)。
備註
1.對於判決不服者,依法得聲明上訴救濟之(§344I)。
2.對於法院之裁定不服者,得提起抗告救濟之(§403條以下)。
3.對個別法官或受託法官之處分,則以聲明異議(§288-3)或準抗告(§416)。


Wanli YANG 2014/01/23


資料來源: 
刑事訴訟法上之法定法官原則,保成學儒法政網,http://www.paochen.com.tw/OnlinePublicationsDetail/3/111

2014年1月19日 星期日

瓜地馬拉司法部

瓜地馬拉司法部
瓜地馬拉檢察體系 
瓜地馬拉之偵查是由瓜地馬拉法務部(檢察總署)所負責,並與內政部所轄之司法警察一起進行案件之調查,於案件調查完畢後,會提起公訴交給法院進行審判。所以檢察官得以指揮警察辦案,起訴後與法院法官進行密切合作。
瓜地馬拉治安問題
瓜地馬拉自2010年起,發生多起重大治安危害案件,兇殺案件頻頻發生,且對婦女之暴力犯罪情形嚴重,這些都是瓜國政府亟欲解決之問題。
是以就謀殺案件部分之政策,目前希望能透過強化科技鑑定之硬體設備與人員訓練提高破案率,接下來是配合強化刑事訴訟程序。
在強化刑事訴訟程序方面,發現很多案件並非單一起刑事案件,背後常見是一系列之組織犯罪案件,所以瓜地馬拉的問題非僅只有其他國家重視之洗錢、貪污問題而已,瓜國問題與其他國家最大的區別在於兇殺案件與對婦女之暴力嚴重。 另外,就婦女遭到性侵害之犯罪也是一個問題。在瓜地馬拉去年一整年有4000件之通報案件。而發現對婦女性侵害之案件,都來自於婦女身旁所認識之人,所以目前瓜國司法部希望建立統一通報制度,民眾可以通報到司法部之後,再由司法部統籌指揮其他單位一起處理[類似我國ROC的單一窗口],所以司法部可以接受24小時通報,有檢察官、醫生、警察與法醫等一起工作。
司法部大樓設計
司法部(檢察總署)一樓。該部一樓大廳寬敞,除設計有24小時之受理窗口外,並配合設置兒童偵訊室、婦女偵訊室以及醫療室以外,更建制有快速法庭,法庭配置與我國(ROC)法庭無甚大差異,亦配置輪值法官,因此,被害人於報案後,倘程序順利,被害人、社工、檢察官與司法警察均一起進行案件之調查,於案件調查完畢後,即立刻提起公訴交給法院進行審判。確實得以於本棟大樓內完成報案、偵查與審判等全數程序。是以瓜國司法部得以將司法警察、社工、醫師、檢察官與法官等均建置在大樓內,分區但一起工作,確屬不易。可見得其對兒童犯罪與婦女犯罪相關政策之重視。
2013/06
BY WANLI YANG

瓜地馬拉政治體制

瓜地馬拉政治體制
一、瓜地馬拉政治。 
瓜地馬拉於1996年終結長達三十六年之內戰,且於終結內戰之同年,瓜國得到來自世界各國之各項援助,觀光旅遊產業也得以開始發展。 瓜地馬拉為多黨政治,且採民主制度。
瓜國現行憲法於1985年5月經國民議會通過,1986年1月14日生效,1994年1月30日通過憲法修正案。依據瓜地馬拉憲法規定:總統、副總統由直接選舉產生,任期4年,且不得連選連任;因瓜國總統任期僅有四年且不得連選,因此影響瓜國之整體政治體制,並無類似我國之考試制度,其文官體系相對上相當不穩定,而不利於長期之施政政策推展。 瓜國正、副總統選舉方於2011年11月6日舉行,由愛國黨之培瑞茲(Otto Pérez Molina)及芭爾德蒂(Ingrid Roxana Baldetti Elias)分別當選正、副總統。
二、瓜國目前主要施政政策
(一)瓜國社會資源分配不均、貧富差距甚大、暴力犯罪猖獗,故現任瓜國總統培瑞茲(Otto Pérez Molina)曾擔任瓜地馬拉政府參軍長一職,以鐵腕改善治安的競選口號及清新的競選策略獲得中下階層支持。 現瓜國政府以改善治安為施政目標,政府並以發展鄉村基礎建設、及促進國家經濟發展為優先施政目標。
(二)瓜地馬拉近期司法國際新聞包括其前總統因洗錢罪嫌被引渡至美國,前獨裁者被判處屠殺罪,然被最高法院否決等。
三、瓜地馬拉國會
瓜國之國會採一院制,且為直接民選,議員之任期為4年,得連選連任。國會無議事常規,多黨政治,議員多依政治利益相互結盟,政治理念相對較為薄弱,所以行政效率也相對較為低落,各項民生關切之鄉村發展法案及國會組織法案等均懸而未決,而影響國家發展。 
四、我國與瓜地馬拉之關係
瓜地馬拉為我國(ROC)之邦交國,目前雙方有農業技術合作協定、維護安地瓜古城文化遺產計畫贈款協定、投資保障協定、自由貿易協定等。 台瓜自由貿易協定於2005年9月22日由兩國總統簽署,2006年7月1日正式生效實施。2012年兩國雙邊貿易額為18,741萬美元,對瓜國之蔗糖、咖啡與木材等商品之需求逐年增加。
五、 瓜地馬拉地理
瓜地馬拉共計有1,465餘萬人口,首都為瓜地馬拉市,面積228平方公里,人口約103萬人。瓜地馬拉市海拔約1,600公尺,所以雖處於熱帶赤道氣候區,但氣溫涼爽,六月平均高溫28度,平均低溫17度,較台灣同一時間涼爽許多。 瓜地馬拉市整座城市為高山或火山環繞,附近有四座活火山,最大的帕卡亞火山海拔2252公尺,2013年5月30日才發生火山爆發。
六、 瓜地馬拉政治經濟概況
貧富差距懸殊,仍以農產為主,主要生產糖與咖啡。進口產品仍有壟斷與寡占情形。
 (一)仰賴國際援助。
而二次世界大戰後至今,國際援助一直是促進發展中國家社會、經濟、政治等各方面發展的重要手段,瓜國亦非例外,長期仰賴國際援助,惟國際援助發展有其演進,從促進經濟成長、滿足人之基本需求、結構調整等目的,是以如何從援助國主導到受援國自主與夥伴關係建立,亦為現今重視之課題。
(二)社會問題嚴重。 
瓜地馬拉自1996年與反對派簽署和平協議而結束長達36年的內戰後,雖然重返國際舞台且積極致力於建設國家,但是貧富差距卻日益加大,全國有超過一半的人口生活在貧窮之中,許多兒童為了家計被迫出外謀生,因此童工現象在瓜地馬拉極為普遍。根據「國際勞工組織」的定義,童工為未滿18歲之勞工,瓜地馬拉之18歲以下之童工數目將近一百萬人,佔了全中美洲的童工比例40%。瓜地馬拉童工現象普遍之因,除了貧窮率高之外,還有保護兒童之執法不嚴、傳統價值觀等社會文化因素。由於印地安原住民馬雅人認為,工作為傳承文化的重要方式,兒童從工作中可培養人格以及責任感,因此馬雅兒童從小就開始準備要工作,印地安兒童成為童工之比例也為非印地安兒童之兩倍。相對於許多國際組織及非政府組織積極地幫助瓜國童工,欲消滅童工現象、保護兒童權利,近十年來,雖然瓜國政府訂定多項計劃開始著手改善童工問題,但成效有限。

 2013/06
 BY Wanli YANG

瓜地馬拉司法制度之介紹

瓜地馬拉司法制度之介紹
瓜地馬拉根據瓜國憲法第141條 是「三權分立」之國家,由司法權負責案件之調查與偵查,所以瓜地馬拉憲法於第203條以下規範有司法權之運作方式,也因此有了相關之法院法庭制度。(瓜地馬拉憲法與多數國家憲政制度相仿,僅有最高法院之設,未若我國(ROC)除最高法院外另設司法院。)
瓜地馬拉法院歷史可分為下述時期:
1824年,一開始最高法院是由全國普選選出六至七名之代表,1824年時由總統任命大法官; 1844-1848年時期,成立了第一制憲大會,1851年根據憲法議事錄,因此選出了瓜國總統以及大法官,不過,這在瓜國歷史上僅有此一次。
1851-1865年時期,當時總統將軍任命大法官;
1865-1885年時期,有經歷過幾位的總統,任期不一,有一年者,也有Justo Rufino Barrios 總統(July 19, 1835 – April 2, 1885),對憲法有所改革,當時的總統任命最高法院院長以及其他大法官。
1887年起,最高法院由院長統籌所有的運作,因此有相關改革。 1887年起,開始也有候選大法官,1885-92年間則出現過兩位總統,其中Alejandro M. Sinibaldi (1885)只有一年任期。 1887年起,改由國會開始任命大法官,但是最高法院院長以及大法官與檢察官則由選舉產生。 最高法院院長任命權限之改變: 1935年Jorge Ubico Castañeda (1931-1944) 將軍提議由國會任命最高法院院長及大法官。
1945-1951年Arevalo博士則由行政權任命最高法院院長與大法官。
1954-1957年制憲大會根據1956年公布之憲法,維持大法官僅為五位。
1966年同樣的,維持原先任命方式,僅由五位改為六位大法官。
1985年瓜地馬拉再度修憲,此部1985年瓜地馬拉憲法於1986年生效直到今天均仍在適用,增加到十三位大法官,任期為五年,可以連任。
2009年瓜國國會依據各項命令,在國會成立「選舉委員會」,很清楚地規定大法官候選人之資格。是以,目前瓜國之最高法院院長仍由國會任命。所有歷史上發生之命令與解釋迄今仍有效。

憲法法院
瓜地馬拉憲法法院 依據憲法規定是瓜國最高解釋憲法法院,且是一個獨立超然的機構,僅有5位憲法法官。

最高法院
最高法院法庭結構: 一個法庭由四位大法官組成,職掌如下述:
(一)民事法庭:有關個人權益、家庭等問題,都是由民事法庭負責。
(二)刑事法庭:刑事案件、徒刑、糾紛等則由刑事法庭負責。
(三)另外設有司法救濟與庇護法庭:各項公聽會等包含在此法庭中。 最高法院近期司法政策目前最高法院有幾個五年期計畫,目前有下述: 司法專職人員法之修正(類似法官法之修正)、刑事相關法律修正、大法官辦公室文書簡化、青少年刑法、兒童及青少年保護法案、勞工法,民事與商業法之修正等。


2013/6
BY WANLI YANG

2014年1月17日 星期五

中華民國刑法 Criminal Law 74-76

中華民國刑法 Criminal Law 74-76
[刑法英文全文各章節 http://wanliyang.blogspot.tw/2009/10/blog-post.html ]


Chapter 9 Probation
第 九 章 緩刑

Article 74  
A punishment of imprisonment for not more than two years, short-term imprisonment, or a fine may be suspended for not less than two years but not more than five years from the day the decision becomes final if either of the following circumstances exists and probation is considered appropriate:
1. There has been no previously sentence to an imprisonment or a more severe punishment pronounced for a intentional offense.
2. There has been no sentence to a imprisonment or a more severe punishment for a intentional offense pronounced within five years after completing execution or remission of a previous sentence to imprisonment or a more severe punishment for a intentional offense.
The pronouncement of probation may consider the circumstances to order the offender to do the following things:
1. Making an apology to the victim
2. Writing a statement of repentance
3. Paying an appropriate amount to the victim as compensation for his property or non-property losses
4. Disbursing a certain amount to Public Treasury
5. Contributing labor service of no less than forty hours and not more than two hundred and forty hours to a governmental department, governmental institution, administrative legal entity, designated public welfare organization or group.
6. Carrying out detox therapy, mental treatment, psychological counseling or other appropriate programs
7. Giving necessary order for protecting the victim
8. Giving necessary order to prevent re-committing a crime.
The situation set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be included in the written judgment.
Items 3 and 4 of paragraph 2 may be the certificate of compulsory execution.
The pronouncement of probation carries less force than the pronouncement of accessory punishment and the pronouncement of rehabilitative punishment.

第 74 條
受二年以下有期徒刑、拘役或罰金之宣告,而有下列情形之一,認以暫不執行為適當者,得宣告二年以上五年以下之緩刑,其期間自裁判確定之日起算:
一、未曾因故意犯罪受有期徒刑以上刑之宣告者。
二、前因故意犯罪受有期徒刑以上刑之宣告,執行完畢或赦免後,五年以內未曾因故意犯罪受有期徒刑以上刑之宣告者。
緩刑宣告,得斟酌情形,命犯罪行為人為下列各款事項
一、向被害人道歉。
二、立悔過書。
三、向被害人支付相當數額之財產或非財產上之損害賠償。
四、向公庫支付一定之金額。
五、向指定之政府機關、政府機構、行政法人、社區或其他符合公益目的之機構或團體,提供四十小時以上二百四十小時以下之義務勞務。
六、完成戒癮治療、精神治療、心理輔導或其他適當之處遇措施。
七、保護被害人安全之必要命令。
八、預防再犯所為之必要命令。
前項情形,應附記於判決書內。
第二項第三款、第四款得為民事強制執行名義。
緩刑之效力不及於從刑與保安處分之宣告。

Article 75  
Probation shall be revoked in either of the following circumstances:
1. During the period of probation, the offender has intentionally committed another crime for which he has received a definitive sentence to imprisonment more than six months.
2. Before the probation, the offender has intentionally committed to another crime and has received a definitive sentence to imprisonment more than six months.
A motion for revoking the ruling of the preceding paragraph shall be filed within six months after the judgment has become finalized.

第 75 條
受緩刑之宣告,而有下列情形之一者,撤銷其宣告:
一、緩刑期內因故意犯他罪,而在緩刑期內受逾六月有期徒刑之宣告確定者。
二、緩刑因故意犯他罪,而在緩刑期內受逾六月有期徒刑之宣告確定者。
前項撤銷之聲請,於判決確定後六月以內為之。

Article 75-1  
After probation is pronounced, it may be revoked if there is a need to execute the punishment, when any of the following circumstances appears to prove that the pronouncement cannot have the expected effect:
1. Before the probation, the offender has intentionally committed another crime, of which he has received a definitive sentence to imprisonment more than six months, short-term imprisonment or a fine has become final during the probation period.
2. During the period probation, the offender has intentionally committed another crime, of which he has received a definitive sentence to imprisonment more than six months, short-term imprisonment or a fine has become final during the probation period.
3. During the period of probation, the offender has committed more crime because of negligence and the pronouncement of punishment in the form of imprisonment has become final.
4. The offender has violated the obligations provided for in items 1 through 8 of paragraph 2 of Article 74 and the circumstances are considered serious.
The provisions of paragraph 2 of the previous article shall also apply to the circumstances of item 1 through item 3.

第 75-1 條
受緩刑之宣告而有下列情形之一,足認原宣告之緩刑難收其預期效果,而有執行刑罰之必要者,得撤銷其宣告:
一、緩刑因故意犯他罪,而在緩刑期內受六月以下有期徒刑、拘役或罰金之宣告確定者。
二、緩刑期內因故意犯他罪,而在緩刑期內受六月以下有期徒刑、拘役或罰金之宣告確定者。
三、緩刑期內因過失更犯罪,而在緩刑期內受有期徒刑之宣告確定者。
四、違反第七十四條第二項第一款至第八款所定負擔情節重大者。
前條第二項之規定,於前項第一款至第三款情形亦適用之。

Article 76  
If probation has not been revoked, the sentence shall forfeit its validity after the expiration of the period of probation, but this provision shall not apply to revocation of probation made under paragraph 2 of Article 75 and paragraph 2 of Article 75-1.
第 76 條
緩刑期滿,而緩刑之宣告未經撤銷者,其刑之宣告失其效力。但依第七十五條第二項、第七十五條之一第二項撤銷緩刑宣告者,不在此限。

Wanli YANG