| 摘要: | 摘要
「發現真實」是刑事司法的重要任務。重大災害工程事故發生時，以救災為首要任務，但事故是否涉有貪瀆舞弊或人為疏失應予刑事究責，每為社會關注的焦點。
工程災害責任之判斷，牽涉工程與法律的科際整合，具高度之專業性，每待專家參與鑑定。完備的證據調查，攸關鑑定之品質，倘若現場封鎖、人員管制、採證及證物監管等關鍵管理環節出問題，不僅倚為基礎的鑑定正確性堪虞，後續犯罪偵查及審判結論也會產生動搖。
依災害防救法相關規定，當重大災害發生時，各級政府機關（單位、團體）進駐現場，救災人員、重型機具雜沓進出，為搶救而拆移危險建築或工作物，屬緊急救災所必須之作業，但對刑案現場及證據也會造成破壞。我國檢察官為刑事訴訟之偵查主體，為廣義的司法官，指揮各級司法警察（官）、協調相關機關進行犯罪偵查，在憲法權力分立架構下，雖不參與行政救災措施，惟二者任務卻平行又緊密連結。工程災變案件，如何在無礙救災的前提下，調和災害應變措施，進行刑案現場管理措施，藉由專家協助鑑定，完善司法科學證據調查，正確追究行為人刑事責任，促進人民對司法之信賴，為辦理是類災害案件的核心課題。
妥善的現場管理及專業鑑定，為工程災變證據調查是否得宜的兩大礎石，本研究以刑事偵查為範圍，經由文獻回顧、實例探討及法律（規）分析，就相關法制及實務運作調和提出心得與建議，期災害應變、刑事偵查與行政或運輸事故調查等多元機制能併行順遂，進而優化災害事故犯罪偵查之效能，提升司法科學證據之品質。
;ABSTRACT
“Seeking the truth” is the foundation of criminal justice. While the incidents of major infrastructure disaster, the public’s attention is often spotlighted onto crisis containment and victim rescue, rather than possible criminal activities underneath the disaster; in such case, the function of criminal justice which seeks to prosecuting criminal acts must compete with the shifted public attention.
Seeking truth from the incident of infrastructure disaster involves the professional interplay of law and engineering. The process of discovering what has actually happened and who has acted criminally often calls for forensic examination. A well-executed forensic examination requires containment of the crime scene, traceable control of relevant individuals, thorough collection of on-site evidence, and foolproof chain of evidence. Any faulty leakage throughout the process may cost the prosecution the case in futile.
According to the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act, relevant government agencies will first response to a specific disaster, along with its personnel, instruments and heavy equipment. These intervening activities obviously would pollute a “crime scene”. Since the prosecutor is not part of the first-response agencies, this creates immense difficulty as well as impairment for criminal justice to function normally. Thus, this research work would inquire the relationship, under the legal structure, between the prosecutor and those first-response agencies, regarding the control of the personnel, disaster site, and other relevant activities, for criminal justice to properly fruition. It is also the aim of this work to discuss a collaborative procedure, thru which the prosecutor can direct and lead the disaster investigation, while allow the disaster rescue to proceed efficiently and effectively.
Based on literature review and the validation of field empirical evidence, this work has presented an administrative procedure which is effective and feasible. This work argues that the leadership of a prosecutor for managing a major infrastructure disaster is not just vital, but also constitutional legitimate. The parallel processing of disaster rescue and crime investigation is feasible, if the prosecutor would lay the rules for all stakeholders at the beginning and act as the pivot for communication among them. The findings of this work can be adopted as part of the current criminal investigation protocol, and contribute to quality assurance for future disaster investigative operations. |
