私文书证“形式瑕疵”及其真实性认定——以《证据规定》第92条第3款为中心的分析

The "Formal Defects" and authenticity determination of private documents——An Analysis Based on Article 92(3) of the Provisions on Evidence

我国法规范层面对私文书证的瑕疵范围及其判断一直缺乏明确的规范指引,导致司法实践做法任意性有加而规范性不足。《证据规定》第92条第3款首次明确私文书证瑕疵限于涂改、增添、删除或者其他形式瑕疵。这一瑕疵范围的规定并不足以应对司法实践中瑕疵的多样性与复杂性。为使该规范发挥更加长效的作用,仍有必要对其范围与真实性认定进行探讨。通过对私文书证的形式瑕疵进行类型化分类,进而认为形式瑕疵只能是现存的载体或记述瑕疵且不考虑瑕疵严重程度及形成原因。在事实分类基础上明确私文书证真实性并非证明责任问题域,而应由法官通过具体举证责任中"情境性因素"的考量、特殊情形下的替代性事实认定方式、"隐性知识"的潜在指引及瑕疵私文书证中的特殊因素考虑等实现其真实性认定。

China’s legal norms on the scope and judgment of the defects of private documents have been a lack of clear regulatory guidance, resulting in arbitrariness and standardization lacks in judicial practice. Article 92(3) of the new Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation makes it clear for the first time that defects in private documents are limited to alteration, addition, deletion or other formal defects. The regulation on the scope of defects is not enough to deal with the diversity and complexity of defects in judicial practice. In order for the Provision to have a longer-term effect, it is necessary to further discuss its scope and authenticity determination. By classifying the formal defects of private documents, it is considered that the formal defects can only be existing defects of carrier or description without considering the severity and causes of the defects. On the basis of fact classification,it is clear that the authenticity of private documents is not in the problem domain of burden of proof, but judges should realize the recognition of authenticity through the consideration of “situational factors” in the specific burden of proof,the way of identifying alternative facts under special circumstances, the potential guidance of "tacit knowledge" and the consideration of special factors in the defective private documents.