公诉决定的确定性:以《刑事诉讼法》再修改为视角  

Review of the Finality of Public Prosecution Decisions:From the Perspective of Further Amendment to The Criminal Procedure Law

作　　者：任禹行 REN Yuhang(Northwest University of Political Science and Law,Xi’an 710199,China)

机构地区：[1]西北政法大学,西安710199

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2024年第5期57-66,共10页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：西北政法大学校级青年科研项目“轻罪案件程序性出罪机制研究”(2023QN11)。

摘　　要：公诉权行使的程序法目标在于形成并维系特定诉讼系属关系,诉讼系属关系一旦形成,便对控辩审三方构造产生约束效力。不起诉旨在宣告诉讼系属关系不能建立,撤回起诉和终局裁判旨在消灭已建立的诉讼系属关系,以上作为诉讼系属关系评价机制的裁判或者决定,均具有不同程度的确定效力。实质确定力产生的前提是实体裁判消灭诉讼系属关系,以不起诉和撤回起诉决定为代表的公诉决定不涉及实体罪责关系评价,不具有实质确定力。出于法安定性和法平和性的考量,不起诉和撤回起诉决定作出后,再行起诉应当有所限制,这种限制体现为作为程序启动门槛的“新的事实”和“新的证据”要件的实质化。The procedural law objective in the exercise of public prosecution authority is to form and maintain a specific litigation ascription relationship.Once the litigation relationship is formed,it will exert a binding effect on the construction of the prosecution,defense,and trial parties.“Non prosecution”aims to declare that the litigation relationship cannot be established,while“withdrawal of prosecution”and“final judgment”aim to eliminate the established litigation relationship.The above judgments or decisions,as evaluation mechanisms for litigation relationships,have varying degrees of certainty.Among them,the premise for the generation of substantive certainty is that the substantive judgment eliminates the litigation relationship,and public prosecution sanctions represented by“no prosecution”and“withdrawal of prosecution”decisions do not involve the evaluation of the substantive criminal responsibility relationship and do not have substantive certainty.However,considering legal stability and peace,there should be restrictions on prosecution after the decision to“not prosecute”or“withdraw the prosecution”is made.These restrictions are embodied in the substantialization of the“new facts”and“new evidence”requirements that serve as the thresholds for initiating the procedure.

关 键 词：撤回起诉 实质确定力 形式确定力 新的事实 新的证据 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]