| 摘要: |
| 对于1997年《刑法》生效前实施的犯罪行为，“不受追诉期限限制”规则的新旧法律适用问题和法定要件判断问题一直未形成一致意见。在解决《刑法》第88条的溯及力问题时，需对《刑法》第12条、1997年《时间效力的解释》第1条以及相关规范做体系性解释，并通过对“两款法定情形发生时”与“新法生效时”“超过追诉期限时”的先后比较，确定具体情形的溯及力规则。司法实务中，对于“立案侦查”要件的判断须改变“对人立案”“对事立案”等形式化标准，重点关注侦查过程中是否“已确定嫌疑人并对其展开侦查”；对“逃避侦查”行为的判断则须坚持主客观一致原则，主观层面不要求行为人“明知自己被立案”，只要认识到自己犯罪且有逃避意图即可，客观上行为也无须设置具体类型，重点考察行为与侦查机关无法抓捕是否存在因果关系。在马某、庄某抢劫案中，侦查机关已发现犯罪嫌疑人并已展开抓捕，行为人“被拦截后逃窜”行为令侦查机关无法抓捕，符合“立案侦查”和“逃避侦查”实质要求，但由于该情形发生于1997年《刑法》生效前，因此应当认定本案已过法定追诉期限，且不能适用《刑法》第88条，不应对该案继续追诉。 |
| 关键词: 追诉时效 溯及力 立案侦查 逃避侦查 追诉期限限制 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Retroactivity and Statutory Requirements of Article 88 of Criminal Law—Focusing on a Robbery Case of Ma and Zhuang |
|
Zhou Chen & Lin Xifen
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| For the criminal acts committed before the entry into force of the Criminal Law in 1997， there has been no consensus on the retroactive principle of the “Indefinite Prosecution” rule and the judgment of the statutory requirements. In order to better understand the retroactivity of Article 88 of the Criminal Law， it is necessary to make a systemic interpretation of Article 12 of the Criminal Law， Article 1 of the Interpretation of Time Effectiveness in 1997 and relevant regulations， and determine the retroactive rules of specific situations by comparing “time of two statutory situations occur” with “time of the new law comes into force” as well as “time of the prosecution period exceeds”. When judging the first statutory situation of “case filing for investigation”， it is essential to focus on whether “the suspect has been identified and investigated” in the investigative process， instead of such formal standard as “case filing for suspects” and “case filing for crime”. Meanwhile， the judgment of “behavior of evading investigation” must follow the principle of subjective and objective consistency. Suspects are not required to know that they have been placed on file， as long as they realize that they have committed crimes and have the intention to escape. Moreover， there is no need to define some specific types of evasive behavior， on the contrary， the substantive standard is whether there is a causality between suspects' behavior and failure of arrest. In the robbery case of Ma and Zhuang， suspects escaped after they had been identified and decided to be arrested， which in line with substantive requirements of Article 88. However， the situation occurred before the new law comes into force， which means Article 88 of the Criminal Law is not retrospective and this case should not continue to be pursued. |
| Key words: Limitation of Prosecution, Retroactivity, Case Filing for Investigation, Evasion from Investigation, Indefinite Prosecution |
