[Case Facts]: In the theft case involving the defendants Lin, Li, and Wang, Lin and Li confessed to the fact of theft, and confessed that Wang participated in the theft with them, and Wang himself argued that he was not involved in the theft, and said that shortly before the theft occurred, he had no contact with Lin and Li due to conflicts, and Lin and Li had a grudge against him and falsely accused him in revenge. The evidence materials provided by the public prosecution include victim statements, on-site investigation records, stolen goods and stolen money carried by Lin and Li, and other evidence. Whether Wang participated in the theft, except for the confessions of Lin and Li, there is no other evidence to confirm.
[Focus of Dispute]: There are three opinions on the handling of this case.
The first opinion is that the relationship between the criminals is mutual evidence and is not restricted by the separate identification rule for confessions in Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The confessions of Lin and Li can corroborate each other, and the defendant Wang can be convicted and sentenced.
The second opinion is that the nature of ***’s criminal confession is still a confession. ***’s crime cannot be corroborated by witnesses. ***’s criminal confession should still comply with Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Restrictive rules that cannot be based on confessions. Even if the confessions of Lin and Li can corroborate each other, they cannot be used as the basis for conviction and sentencing.
The third opinion is that the prisoner’s confession should comply with the provisions of Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law, otherwise it will easily lead to illegal acquisition of confessions and incorrect use of confessions. However, when other circumstances cannot be obtained, in order to prevent criminals from escaping legal punishment, when the defendants are detained separately, the possibility of collusive confessions can be ruled out, and the details of the criminal facts confessed by the defendants are basically consistent, you can be very cautious The prisoner's confession was used as the basis for finalizing the case.
The author agrees with the second opinion.
[Commentary]: The purpose of Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law is to prevent the tendency of confessions to be made for personal gain and to bend the law. * The **confession of a co-defendant is also the defendant's confession. The rule stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law that confessions cannot be recognized separately applies not only to the confession of a single defendant, but also to the **confession of a co-defendant. If the case is allowed to be finalized based solely on the confessions of the criminals, conflicts of interest between the criminals may lead to errors in fact determination, and problems such as blaming others out of thin air may arise. Furthermore, in the previous case, Lin and Li both confessed that Wang participated in ***'s theft, but Wang argued that he had a conflict with Lin and Wang did not participate in the theft. It was Lin and Li who Two people had a grudge against him, so they framed him for revenge. In the absence of other evidence to prove the possibility of Wang’s involvement in the theft or the possibility of Lin and Wang’s false accusations, frame-up and retaliation, according to the principle of abrogating suspicion in my country’s Criminal Procedure Law, Wang should not be found to have participated in the robbery. **.
Therefore, the author believes that *** and his accomplices only need to strengthen the evidence for the confession of the *** prisoner. Without the supplementary evidence, even if the confession of the *** prisoner is consistent with each other, it cannot be used as evidence against the defendant. The basis for conviction and punishment. Author: Gan County Court Liu Yiling