中 EN

首頁 >

2023-12-26

| What is corroborative evidence?

Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the confession of the defendant, if not obtained through violence, coercion, inducement, fraud, exhaustion during interrogation, illegal detention, or other improper means, and if it aligns with the facts, may be used as evidence. The confession of the defendant or co-conspirator shall not be the sole basis for a guilty verdict, and other necessary evidence shall still be investigated to determine its alignment with the facts.

 

"corroborating evidence" in a criminal case refers to a rule or principle a single piece of evidence cannot be the sole basis for establishing the defendant's guilt, and additional evidence is required to confirm the authenticity of the defendant's or victim's confession and other relevant factors. Its primary purpose is to prevent a verdict of guilt based solely on the defendant's or victim's confession, thereby mitigating the risk of wrongful convictions.
 
In criminal proceedings, confessions are often crucial pieces of evidence. However, due to various factors that can make confessions unreliable, such as psychological pressure on the defendant or coercive questioning, or the victim exaggerating circumstances to ensure a smooth legal process, additional evidence is necessary for verification and supplementation. This is the concept of "corroborating evidence" comes into play.
 

Characteristics of corroborating evidence.

  1. Independence: Corroborating evidence should be independent of the confession, and it should not merely repeat or indirectly restate the confession. For example, when a victim's relative provides testimony that essentially duplicates the victim's confession after hearing it from the victim, and their statement aligns with the victim's account, in such cases, the testimony of the victim's relative cannot be considered as corroborating evidence.
  2. Relevance: Corroborating evidence should be relevant to the facts of the case and should be able to substantiate those facts to a certain degree.

 

 

Below is a detailed introduction to different types of corroborative evidence.

Types of Corroborative Evidence

Description

Example

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence of the crime

Surveillance footage of the crime scene

Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence connected to the crime through reasoning and logic

Mobile phone location data showing the suspect's whereabouts at the time of the crime

Physical Evidence

Any physical evidence

Fingerprints, DNA, weapons used in the crime

Expert Evidence

Evidence provided by knowledgeable professionals

Forensic expert's report

Eyewitness Testimony

Testimony provided by eyewitnesses to the crime

Witnesses describing the process of the crime occurring

 

【Case Background】

The defendant and Ms. A met through an internet chat room, the defendant learned that Ms. A was in urgent need of financial assistance.To satisfy his own sexual desires, he proposed the sexual transaction.，The two parties agreed on a transaction involving sexual services in exchange for a specified amount of money. They arranged to meet in front of a certain convenience store, the defendant would pick up Ms. A in his personal car and drive her to a hotel for the transaction.

During the investigation, the prosecutor believed that the defendant, unwilling to pay for the transactional sex, harbored malicious intentions. He falsely claimed to Ms. A that he was a police officer and accused her of engaging in sexual transactions, a violation of the Child and Youth Sexual Transaction Prevention Act. He demanded that she hand over her phone and identification for investigation purposes, insinuating that a police officer who had just passed by was his colleague. He threatened her with statements like, "If you don't cooperate, we will have to go back to the police station to make a record."

The defendant misled Ms. A into believing he was a police officer. To avoid prosecution and retrieve her identification and phone, which she had handed over to the defendant, she continued against her will to ride in the defendant's vehicle to a motel. There, with the intent of committing forced sexual intercourse, the defendant violated Ms. A's will and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her in the room. The prosecutor thus concluded that the defendant was suspected of committing the crime of forced sexual intercourse under Article 221, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code and legally initiated a public prosecution.
 

【High Court: Original Judgment Revoked】

At the first trial, the district court, based on the hearsay testimony of Ms. A and her friend, concluded that the defendant was guilty of forced sexual intercourse.
 
However, our law firm's analysis found that the original judgment was based solely on the statements of Ms. A and her friend, who relayed Ms. A's account. The friend's statement is still considered Ms. A's own account legally and cannot be used as corroborative evidence. The original judgment evidently contradicted the principle of evidence-based adjudication and had significant legal flaws, warranting its annulment.
 
In the case, Ms. A claimed that the defendant had a police badge on him, but after reviewing all surveillance footage, there was no police badge as described by Ms. A, further indicating the unreliability of her statement and significant flaws in the evidence.
 
Moreover, Ms. A had mentioned that the defendant once showed something resembling a police ID, but she could not specifically describe the size, shape, color, or pattern of the alleged ID. Considering that police IDs in our country are distinctly red with a prominent police emblem for clarity and visibility, it's implausible that Ms. A could forget the color of such a conspicuous item. Therefore, her account has inconsistencies that defy common experience and cannot be used to make an unfavorable determination against the defendant.
 
The judgment in this case had many doubts. For instance, if Ms. A was being coerced, there were ample opportunities for her to seek help, such as approaching a police officer during the incident. The original judgment was based solely on the testimony of Ms. A and her friend, who heard Ms. A's account, without any corroborative evidence, clearly violating the principle of evidence-based adjudication. The original judgment also had contradictions in evidence reasoning and errors in decision-making, unsupported by judicial practice. It was overturned, and the defendant was acquitted to avoid wrongful oppression and uphold human rights, ultimately vindicating the defendant.

 

Reference：最高法院103年度台上字第1256號判決、最高法院107年度台上字第1770號刑事判決、最高法院107年度台上字第2241號刑事判決

>Consult Now

TOP