论司法裁判中的事实问题

【作者】 赵承寿；

【导师】 刘瀚；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 法学理论， 2002， 博士

【摘要】 裁判事实是事实审理者通过法定程序，在证据的基础上，对案件涉及的客观事实所作的一种认定或推定。从程序的角度看，裁判事实是经过程序法规范过滤了的事实；从证据的角度看，裁判事实是在客观事实的基础上，依据证据规则再现或建构的事实；从规范事实的角度看，裁判事实则是依据实体法规范裁剪过的事实。 客观事实本身不存在真假问题，只有存在与否的问题。如果说非要用真假来评判客观事实不可的话，那么，客观事实的真假问题与其存在问题也是同一的。正是在这一意义上，我们说客观事实是一种类似于物自体的绝对事实。裁判事实不同于这种意义上的绝对事实，它只是一种相对事实，而且作为事实命题存在真假问题。对于裁判事实的真与假，人们只能基于裁判事实与客观事实的竞合关系才能加以判断，因为无论主观因素在裁判事实的认定过程中起着何种重要的作用，裁判事实都必须建立在客观的证据事实基础之上。 裁判事实的认定主要受到以下两个方面情况的影响：一方面是裁判事实与客观事实(生活事实或自然事实)的竞合关系，另一方面是裁判事实与规范事实的竞合关系。裁判事实如果不符合客观事实，这一裁判事实作为一种事实判断就是一个伪命题；同时，如果裁判事实不符合规范事实，即使它符合客观事实，也就是说这一事实判断也是一个真命题，但在法律上它只是一个无意义的命题，不能作为权利义务关系产生、变更和消灭的依据。因此，在司法实践中，必须同时解决好裁判事实与规范事实的竞合问题和裁判事实与客观事实的竞合问题。从制度层面上看，证据规则更多地与裁判事实的真伪问题联系在一起，程序规范更多地与裁判事实的正当性或合法性问题相连。在疑难案件中，可以以析取性事实理论为依据，通过法律拟制或推定，解决裁判事实认定的客观性问题。 理论界一些主张裁判事实“客观真实说”的学者往往片面强调裁判事实与客观事实的完全竞合，而一些主张“法律真实说”的学者则往往片面强调裁判事实与规范事实的竞合。其实，“客观真实说”和“法律真实说”不是针对同一问题产生的两种对立的裁判事实理论，因为裁判事实与客观事实的关系问题需要解决的是裁判事实的真伪问题，而裁判事实与规范事实的关系问题需要解决的则是裁判事实的正当性或合法性问题；裁判事实的真伪问题归根结底是实然领域中的事实判断问题，而裁判事实的正当性或合法性问题归根结底是应然领域中的价值判断问题。 裁判事实与客观事实的竞合和裁判事实与规范事实的竞合完全可以统一起来，“以事实为根据，以法律为准绳”准确地揭示了它们之间的这种对立统一关系。这一论断的前半句话是以裁判事实的客观真实性为基础的，后半句话则是解决裁判事实正当性问题的基本原则，两者不可偏废。一方面裁判事实的正当性或合法性应当建立在裁判事实的真实性基础之上，除非有较高位阶的价值需要予以特殊保护，否则，裁判事实与客观事实的竞合应当优先于裁判事实与规范事实的竞合；另一方面，对裁判事实(生活事实或自然事实)的认定必须坚持以规范事实为准绳，这是法治作为一种规则治理的事业最基本的要求。关于裁判事实与客观事实的竞合的具体标准则应当以辩证唯物主义的认识论为依据，坚持裁判事实的绝对真实与相对真实统一；关于裁判事实与规范事实的竞合问题则应当以法治的一般原则为基础，坚持形式正义与实质正义的统一。 在司法实践中，由于裁判事实与客观事实的竞合问题可能比裁判事实与规范事实的竞合问题更难解决，因此现代社会中的法律越来越倾向于把裁判事实与客观事实的竞合问题转化为一个规则问题。也就是说，在客观事实真伪不明的时候，或无法探知事实或探知客观事实的成本太高时，人为地划定一个界限或制定一个标准，作为解决裁判事实问题的依据。这样，在疑难案件中，既可以依据严格的规则主义，用规范裁减事实，又可以通过“司法造法”，创设新的规范或者变更旧的规范，在尊重客观事实的基础之上解决社会生活中出现的新问题。不过，这样一来，往往容易模糊客观事实与规范事实之间的界限，使得裁判事实变得更加扑溯迷离，也使得以裁判事实为基础的判决变得缺乏可预期性，这是在研究裁判事实理论时应当给与高度重视的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 Adjudicative facts mean the judgments or presumptions made by the trier of fact about the objective facts concerning the case,on the basis of the evidences,through the procedure. From the viewpoint of procedural law,adjudicative facts are the facts filtered through procedural rules;from the viewpoint of evidence,adjudicative facts are the facts reproduced according to the evidence rule on the basis of the objective facts;from the viewpoint of substantive law,adjudicative facts are the facts trimmed according to substantive rules.The objective facts have no the question about truth or falsehood,just concern the question of being or not being. If the objective facts have to be judged by truth or falsehood,then the truth or falsehood only means being or not being. Exactly in this sense,we consider the objective facts as some absolute facts similar to the being-in-itself. The adjudicative fact is different from the objective fact,is only a relative fact,and concerns the question of the truth or falsehood. No matter what an important role the subjective factor plays during the procedure of the finding of the adjudicative facts,the adjudicative facts must be determined on the basis of the objective evidentiary facts. The truth or falsehood about the adjudicative fact must be judged upon the matching relation of the adjudicative facts and the objective facts.The finding of the adjudicative facts is affected by a couple of factors. On one hand,the adjudicative facts must be matched with the objective facts (the facts on the human life or the facts on nature);On the other hand,the adjudicative facts must be matched with the normative facts. If the adjudicative fact doesn’t match with the objective fact,the adjudicative fact as a factual statement is false statement;If the adjudicative fact doesn’t match with the normative fact,the adjudicative fact is just a meaningless statement in the domain of law even though the factual statement matches with the objective fact and is true statement,and can not be used as the basis of the coming into being,changing and terminating of the relationships of the right and liability. In the judicial practice,the question of the matching between the adjudicative facts and objective facts as well as the question of the matching between the adjudicative facts and normative facts must be solved at the same time.In the law circle,some scholars who uphold the objective truth doctrine unilaterally emphasize the complete matching between the adjudicative facts and the objective facts,meanwhile some others who insist the legal truth doctrine unilaterally emphasize the matching between the adjudicative facts and the normative facts. Actually,the objective truth doctrine and the legal truth doctrine aren’t mutually antagonistic on the same question about the adjudicative fact theory,because the matching between the adjudicative facts and the objective facts points to the question of the truth or falsehood about the adjudicative facts,meanwhile the matching between the adjudicative facts and normative facts points to the question of the legitimacy of the adjudicative facts;In the final analysis,The question of the truth or false about adjudicative facts is a question of factual judgment about what it is,at the same time,the question of the legitimacy of the adjudicative facts is a question of value judgment about -what it ought to be.The matching between the adjudicative facts and the objective facts,and the matching between the adjudicative facts and the normative facts can be integrated. The principle of taking facts as the basis and the law as criterion generalizes the confrontational unity nicely. The fore half statement of the principle sets up the truthof the adjudicative facts on the basis of the objective facts,the rear half statement of the principle deals with the legitimacy of the adjudicative facts,and the two sides are equally important. On one hand,the legitimacy of the adjudicative facts should put the truth of the adjudicative facts as the basis,and the matching betw更多还原