监察调查与刑事司法的证据衔接及其完善

On the Connection of Evidence between Supervisory Investigation and Criminal Justice

随着监察法的生效实施,我国监察体制改革进入了新阶段,伴随监察权集中统一、权威高效的实践运行,开辟了新时代反腐败斗争的创新型模式。随着监察体制改革的深入推进,伴生所至的,便是新模式如何与旧模式顺畅衔接的问题。在此过程中,职务犯罪的监察调查与刑事诉讼程序的关系备受关注,调查证据与刑事司法如何进行衔接成为不可忽视的重要问题。基于监察权规范行使的视角,应当严格规范职务违法调查的证据采集,从而更好保障被调查人的权利;由于监察调查过程中难以按照职务违法和职务犯罪进行证据标准的二元构建,因而职务违法和职务犯罪应当保持一致的证据标准而不应割裂分化。监察调查所获言词证据在职务犯罪中“可以作为证据使用”,现有法律规范为言词证据进入刑事审判程序提供了直接转化的合法性依据,保证了前期证据效力和后期司法衔接的效率,但是言词证据进入庭审阶段仍需要经过质证,注意对该证据合法性、客观性与关联性的审查,从而与庭审实质化的要求相协调。尽管现有监察法对非法证据排除制度有相应的规定,但仍较为薄弱,难以支撑实践活动中排除非法证据的工作开展,考虑到后续证据进入司法程序的排除,较为成熟的刑事诉讼体系能够树立标杆供监察法进行参考借鉴,并对监察调查的证据排非进行进一步细化。监察调查人员作为监察调查主体、证人作为案件事实的获悉者,二者对于事实查明具有举足轻重的现实作用,因而应当进一步完善证人和调查人员出庭制度,以保证职务犯罪证据的可采性和客观性。

With the promulgation of the Supervision Law,the reform of supervision system in China has entered a new stage.The connection between supervision,investigation and criminal procedures has attracted much attention,and how to connect investigation evidence with criminal procedure is also an important issue.At present,in the exercise of supervision power,evidence of duty violation and duty crime should be consistent with the same standard;the transformation of verbal evidence based on the consideration of legal cohesion has a legal basis;referring to the more mature criminal litigation system,we should further refine the illegal evidence exclusion of supervision and investigation;the system of witnesses and investigators appearing in courts should be improved to ensure the admissibility and authenticity of evidence.