Previous 24 / 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 後，隨即搭乘被告所駕駛前揭休旅車外出，此有賴○○騎乘機車行經之路線地圖、路口監視器及被告戊○○住處監視器之影像翻拍畫面在卷可參（見警卷一第188至192頁、他卷一第50至54頁、偵卷三第153至159頁）。又經警方調閱被告戊 ○○所駕駛車牌號碼000-0000號休旅車之國道ETC通行交易明細及古坑服務區監視器影像畫面、並查閱扣案之被告所持用HTC廠牌手機內留存關於104年7月12日時間軸歷程紀錄，顯示被告約於104年7月12日上午5時55分許，自○○巷住家駕駛該休旅車搭載被害人賴○○出發後，途經國道3號古坑服務區時至加油站加油，並下車至洗手間後，旋於同日9時1 8分許返回住處等情，有車牌號碼000-0000號之車輛通行交易明細、古坑服務區之監視器影像翻拍照片、被告手機內使用者GOOGLE帳號於104年7月12日之手機路線歷程畫面之翻拍照片、被告住家之監視器影像翻拍畫面（見警卷一第33頁、第35至39頁、第208至210頁、第294至302頁，偵卷三第153 至159頁）等附卷可稽。嗣被告於同日上午返家後，旋於同日上午10時6分許，騎乘被害人賴○○之前開機車，沿高鐵東路往北行駛，而將被害人賴○○之前開機車騎往烏日火車站與高鐵東路口停放，並由證人蕭○○騎乘車牌號碼000-00 0機車自後接應，被告與證人蕭○○約於同日上午10時19分許雙載返家等情，亦有監視器影像翻拍畫面及尋獲機車之現場照片附卷可參（見他卷一第54至55頁、偵卷一第203至211 頁、偵卷三第171至176��）。復又於同日上午被告再度駕車搭載證人己○○（詳後述）由住家出發往南投方向行駛，行經鳶峰停車場往花蓮方向，於同日下午2時24分許則車行至台8線路段，並於同日下午7時29分許返回住家等情，亦有車牌號碼000-0000號之車輛通行交易明細、被告手機內使用者 GOOGLE帳號於104年7月12日之手機路線歷程畫面之翻拍照片、被告住家之監視器影像翻拍畫面（見警卷一第33、35至 39、208至210頁，偵卷三第153至159頁）等附卷可稽。 ⒊另參證人蕭○○於偵查中及原審審理中亦證稱：戊○○確有第二十四頁

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