Previous 67 / 95 Next

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 亡。⒋死者檢出之藥物成分及作用已於鑑定報告書内陳述，而檢出之藥物成分一般是死者生前有施用相關的藥物。送驗檢出之zolpidem及estazolam皆是從腐敗組織液體化驗出，不是血液内實際濃度，僅能判斷有可能因檢出藥物的共同作用而產生嗜睡、昏迷，但無法判斷是否一定足以讓死者昏迷。⒌以本案死者並無血液檢體可做化驗比較，文獻上也無腐敗組織液的檢驗數值可做比對，死者死因上的中毒性休克僅為與最後發生死亡結果有相關，並不是主要因藥物中毒直接死亡。」有法務部法醫研究所110年8月2日法醫理字第110 00042950號函在卷可參（見本院前審卷一第407至409頁）。而被告係以相同手法將事先摻入鎮靜安眠藥劑Stilnox之不詳飲食，令被害人陳○○、賴○○服食，致其2人陷入昏迷狀態而失去抵抗能力後，將其2人分別以頭下腳上之方式拉栽塞入預先準備之綠色、藍色鐵桶內，再持不詳扳手將鐵桶上方頂蓋之桶箍螺帽拴緊，使其2人處於缺氧之密閉空間內因而窒息之手法殺害被害人陳○○、賴○○，業經本院認定如前，佐以被告自以前開手法迷昏被害人陳○○、賴○○，將2人置入鐵桶內，再載運至台8線公路丟棄之期間，時間間隔均超過5小時，以被害人2人均為成年男性，倘非因已窒息死亡，豈有毫無掙扎、反抗以求生之聲響？基此，堪認本案被害人陳○○、賴○○均在被告將上開綠色鐵桶、藍色鐵桶推落山谷之前即已窒息死亡，應認被告亦有遺棄屍體之犯行。二、論罪㈠核被告分別殺害被害人陳○○、賴○○之行為，均係犯刑法第271條第1項之殺人罪、同法第247條第1項之遺棄屍體罪。本件檢察官起訴書指被告先後殺害被害人陳○○、賴○○，僅涉犯刑法第271條第1項之殺人罪嫌，惟本院前審已認定被告先後2次犯行，各係以一行為同時觸犯刑法第271條第1項殺人罪及同法第247條第1項遺棄屍體罪，應分別從一重之殺人罪論處（見原判決第60、61頁），復經本院於準備程序及第六十七頁

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Yang Hongru (楊鴻儒)

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Taiwan

Nationalities

Taiwanese

Case Title: Yang Hong-ru (Taiwan Supreme Court Criminal Judgment No. 1276 [114])

Age at Offence: 68

Age Group at Offence: Senior (60 and Above)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Unknown

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Person with Disabilities: Mental

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 23.6978

Longitude: 120.9605

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): Taiwan

Contributing TRP Partner

Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (Taiwan)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2016

Method of Execution: Not executed

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Blood pattern analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Chemistry/Toxicology/Drug analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint
Mitigation Specialist
Mental Health: Other
Mental Health: Psychiatrist
Mental Health: Psychologist

Case Background (300 words max): Yang Hong-ru was known to both victims, Chen and Lai. He may have harboured murderous intent towards the two men, possibly due to gambling debts or other motives.

Under the pretence of going on a trip or visiting friends, Yang drove away with the victim Chen on the morning of 27 June 2015, and with the victim Lai on the morning of 12 July that same year. On both occasions, during the journey, Yang laced the victims' food and drink with sleeping pills, rendering each of them unconscious. He then placed them head-first, feet-up, into sealed metal drums, where they suffocated to death within the confined spaces.

He transported the drums containing the victims' bodies to a location near the boundary between Nantou and Hualien on Provincial Highway No. 8—the first on the afternoon of 27 June 2015, and the second at midday on 12 July, where he disposed of them by pushing them into a ravine, thereby killing Chen and Lai in succession.

In the first, second, and third trials, as well as the first retrial, the defendant was sentenced to death. This was later commuted to life imprisonment in the second retrial, and that sentence was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

In addition to the psychiatric assessment, a pre-sentencing social investigation was also conducted in this case. A multidisciplinary team was assembled for this purpose, comprising not only psychiatrists and psychologists, but also legal scholars and criminologists.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

This case falls under the provisions of the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act, and accordingly, the sentence ought to be reduced to life imprisonment.
Pursuant to Taiwan's parole regulations, given that the defendant is of advanced age, life imprisonment would be sufficient, as the likelihood of the defendant reoffending upon release from prison is considered low.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

This case has been pending before the first-instance trial since December 2015. By the time the Supreme Court remanded it for retrial in September 2023, approximately seven years and nine months had elapsed. According to the terms of the remand order, certain matters remained to be subjected to forensic examination and witnesses to be questioned, requiring further investigation and clarification. Upon completion of the court's investigation and pronouncement of the judgment in the second retrial appeal, more than eight years would have passed. Accordingly, there exist grounds under Article 7 of the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials warranting mitigation of punishment (where a death sentence is mitigated, the punishment shall be life imprisonment).
Consideration should be given to whether, even in the event that an elderly prisoner may become eligible for parole release following prolonged execution of sentence, the risk of reoffending diminishes due to advanced age.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Private
Remand: Private
Forth Appeal: Private
Trial: State Legal Aid
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Article 271(1) of the Criminal Code: A person who takes the life of another shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than ten years.

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

Mandarin (Traditional)

Is the case brief featured?: Yes

Primary Documents

【楊鴻儒】最高法院114年度台上字第1276號刑事判決.pdf
Other
Download View
【楊鴻儒】臺灣高等法院臺中分院112年度上重更二字第4號刑事判決.pdf
Other
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Yang Hongru (楊鴻儒)

Primary Documents

Notifications