被告自白任意性之抗辯，應由何人舉證？就現行法之意旨，顯然歸屬於提出自白之檢察官，惟絕大多數最高法院判決未能凸顯此一意旨，仍舊執著於由法院依職權調查之方式，使得原居於輔助地位之法院，動輒越殂代庖，取代檢察官之角色，僅有極少數之判決，能直書該條本旨，要求檢察官舉證。至於第158條之4之舉證，樣本雖然仍屬有限，僅三則判決，有必要持續觀察，但就目前所出現之判決而言，不難發現，其一方面仍保有濃厚職權調查之色彩，三則判決中即有兩則言明法院有調查職責；另一方面則一再強調適用之前提為條文中所稱之「除法律另有規定外」，嚴格限縮適用之範圍。第159條之4共列出三款特信性文書之舉證責任，最高法院相關判決可作如下之解讀：第1、2款之文書，原則上具有證據能力，為相反之主張者，負有舉證責任；至於第3款，則要求提出文書者舉證證明該文書係在「可信之特別情況下」所製作，始取得證據能力。惟最高法院為何如此切割第1、2款與第3款，其理由何在？卻未有進一步說明。 Criminal Procedural Law revised in 2003 adopted the rule of the prosecutor’’s burden of proof as a symbol of adversary system. This rule is not only important to define deference of the role between prosecutors and judges, but also helpful to safeguard the right to be presumed innocent.The burden of proof and the standard of proof lie at the heart of the criminal trial. According to Criminal Procedural Law 156 (3), the prosecutor bears the persuasive burden to prove the confession reliable while the accused argued it obtained by police interrogation abuse. Nevertheless this research finds that in a criminal court the judge used to take charge in the investigation to the disputed interrogation circumstances instead of the prosecutor. Essentially the same approach was used on the occasions when the accused argued the police fail to make the warning before the interrogation.As to the exceptions of Hearsay Rule, the Supreme Court’’s considerations are not consistent. Theoretically, whoever raises the hearsay evidence should prove it containing reliability and necessity. This study finds that the Court on occasional required the opposite bear the burden to prove hearsay not reliable.
