论监察证据审查判断规则的类型化建构  

On the Typological Construction of Supervision Evidence Examination and Judgment Rules

作　　者：王译 Wang Yi

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学反腐败司法研究基地 [2]最高人民检察院检察公益诉讼理论研究基地(湘潭大学) [3]湘潭大学法学院

出　　处：《青少年犯罪问题》2022年第3期63-74,共12页Issues on Juvenile Crimes and Delinquency

基　　金：2021年教育部人文社科研究规划基金青年项目“监察案件非法证据排除规范体系研究”(项目编号:21YJC82049);2022年河南省法学会职务犯罪检察专项咨询课题“《监察法》中认罪认罚从宽制度适用研究”项目编号:HNLS(2022)B16的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：《监察法》第33条明确了监察证据应采刑事证据标准,避免进入刑事诉讼后重复取证造成的效率迟延。实践中,检察机关对监察证据的审查判断存在形式审查与实质审查的模式区别。完善监察证据的实质审查模式应以检察官客观义务为基础,强调刑事诉讼语义下的证据能力与证明力判断标准。囿于监察调查程序启动原因存在职务违法与职务犯罪的分野,对于职务违法证据若适用较高标准则存在放纵违法行为的可能。立法应当构建类型化的职务违法与职务犯罪证据规则体系,不仅可区分职务案件所涉纠纷的不同性质,还可在实现证据“三性”基础上发挥不同类型监察证据在衔接刑事诉讼中的功能。Article 33 of the Supervision Law clarifies that criminal evidence standards should be adopted for supervision evidence,to avoid the efficiency delay caused by repeated evidence collection after entering criminal proceedings.In practice,there are differences between formal examination and substantive examination in the examination and judgment of supervision evidence by procuratorial organs.Perfecting the substantive examination mode of supervision evidence should be based on the objective obligation of prosecutors,emphasizing the judgment standard of evidence ability and probative force under the semantics of criminal procedure.There is a distinction between duty violation and duty crime due to the starting reason of the supervision and investigation procedure.If higher standards are applied to the evidence of duty violation,there is a danger of indulgence of illegal acts.Legislation should build a typed evidence rule system of duty violation and duty crime,which can not only distinguish the different nature of disputes involved in duty cases,but also play the role of different types of supervision evidence in linking criminal proceedings on the basis of realizing the“three natures”of evidence.

关 键 词：监察证据 实质审查 证据能力 检察官客观义务 证明力 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学] D922.11[政治法律—法学]