Previous 22 / 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 作用達失去反抗能力或昏迷程度等節，經本院再函請法務部法醫研究所補充說明，該所以113年7月10日法醫理字第1130 0050810號函、113年10月1日法醫理字第11300221860號函函覆意見略以：❶本案死者陳○○發現於空間狹小鐵桶，相驗及解剖無明顯嚴重約束掙扎外傷，因此死者被置入鐵桶時已經無需強制施加約束，且鐵桶蓋上後也無掙扎求生行動。正常健康條件之成年男性，除非已經死亡，在未受綑綁約束，意識清醒，有能力掙扎反抗情況下，應該極困難將其屈身置入鐵桶内。本案死者無約束掙扎且體内有安眠藥成分，顯見若不是死者已經死亡，那麼就是死者因為安眠藥物作用已昏迷無掙扎反抗能力。據此研判死者當時因安眠藥作用致昏迷無法抵抗求生，或遭直接置入桶中在桶内有限空氣耗盡後窒息，或預先以不留下外傷之手法殺害後再置入桶中，前述兩種可能性並無法由屍體勘驗獲得結論。❷屍體腐敗後因液體在細胞内外及組織中分布移動及蒸發作用，與死亡當時血中濃度無法做比對推估，但死者無明顯嚴重約束掙扎外傷，研判當時死者已昏迷失去反抗隨人擺布且無掙扎求生能力。❸ 在死者已昏迷隨人擺布且無掙扎求生能力狀況下，只需以質地柔軟枕頭被服掩摀死者口鼻之「輕手法」即可令死者死亡，並不需要大費周章的用斧鉞刀槍，在死者身上留下明顯傷口才能殺害死者。本案死者究竟是遭殺害後再置入鐵桶，抑或尚有氣息即置入鐵桶後，因桶内有限空氣耗盡窒息，無法由屍體勘驗得出結論，需參考被告當時思慮情況。被告若對安眠藥物作用深度及藥性持續時間可以掌握，確認死者置入鐵桶至鐵桶内空氣用盡前不會轉醒，則預先殺害顯得多此一舉，反之先予殺害是為確保過程中死者不會轉醒的計晝作為（見本院卷一第381至382頁、卷二第19至20頁）。 ⒊綜上，本案於花蓮縣○○鄉台8線公路119公里處尋獲之藍色鐵桶內裝載之屍體為被害人賴○○；於花蓮縣○○鄉台8線公路119.2公里處尋獲之綠色鐵桶內裝載之屍體為被害人陳 ○○，其2人死亡方式均為他殺，且體內均檢出安眠藥Zolpi 第二十二頁

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