文章编号：1673-9973（2021）03-0057-04

摘 要：证据是将某行为认定为犯罪行为的事实根据，从目前学界的态度和倾向来看，证据与犯罪之间的关系存在较为显著的割裂，就算是专门针对定罪而进行过的研究，大多也是有意回避艰涩的事实认定，而聚焦于法律适用。然而定罪一方面是事实评价，另一方面是法律评价，二者相辅相成，不可偏废。任何证据都无法架空事实而生成法律适用功能，以事实认定的相关问题为出发点，以犯罪构成理论为分析工具，对我国的刑事证据理论进行解构和分析，将定罪的有关理论延伸到“刑事一体化”理论范畴中，可为司法实践提供有用的参考借鉴。

关键词：刑事证据法;刑事诉讼法;犯罪构成

中图分类号：D925.2    文献标识码：A    DOI：10.13411/j.cnki.sxsx.2021.03.011

The Relationship Between the Evidence Law of Criminal Procedure and the Constitutional Elements of Criminal Law

LI Jin-ke

（School of Law， Yunnan University， Kunming 650504， China）

Abstract：Evidence is the factual basis for identifying a certain behavior as a crime. From the attitude and tendency of the current academic circles， the relationship between evidence and crime is significantly separated. Even the researches on conviction are deliberately intended to avoid the difficult fact identification and focus on the application of law. However， conviction， on the one hand， is the evaluation of fact; on the other hand， it is the legal evaluation， both of which are consistent with each other and cant be biased. Any evidence cant overhead the fact and generate the function of law application. Starting from the relevant issues of fact determination， this paper reconstructs and analyzes the theory of criminal evidence in China with the theory of crime constitution as the analysis tool， and extends the theory of conviction to the theory of “criminal integration”， which can provide useful reference for judicial practice.

Key words：criminal evidence law; criminal procedure law; constitution of crime

一、刑事證明责任的问题

国内学者对证明责任的观点可谓见仁见智，比如孙长勇教授提出的证明责任既不属于权利，也不属于义务，只是法律的实现分配，因此不涉及转移、倒置的问题。孙教授同时也指出证明责任制度在我国的三个主要阻碍：其一是控审分离原则尚未实施;其二是疑罪从无原则难以全面施行;其三是不具备被告人履行证明责任的客观条件。我国的刑法构成理论是闭合的，即只要符合四个构成要件，就能够认定构成犯罪，如果检方要承担全部举证责任，显然压力过大且不现实。为此，孙长勇教授还提出即使是被告人，在情势需要时也应当承担举证责任，如果其展示的证据令法官对其犯罪事实产生怀疑，检察机关就要随后承担证明责任。……