Previous 45 / 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 其表示，該鐵桶被拿到賴○○旁邊，第一次跑過去，賴○○ 跟一名男子在喝飲料，還要拿飲料要給他喝，但是這名鄰居的名字其不知道，第一次他再跑到公園的時候，賴○○跟該該男子又跟他打招呼，第四趟的時候他才看到鐵桶被拿到那裡，其在懷疑這個桶子，是跟賴○○喝飲料的該名男子，這名男子在其與己○○去大禹嶺那天，有來找其拿一個桶子去丟掉，其就拒絕他，因為其有事情，其就懷疑這名男子拿來裝賴○○的屍體；裝賴○○的屍桶與其的車有刮痕跡是因該為該只桶子是從其家拿出去的云云（見偵卷一第250頁）。 ③就上開被告於警詢、偵查中之辯解，其於104年9月26日尋獲被害人賴○○屍體前，經警拘提到案時，先於104年9月25日警詢時、偵查中辯以104年7月12日被害人賴○○並未至其住處找其，且先前僅曾駕車搭載被害人賴○○至烏日高鐵站，此外別無他往，亦無邀約同往臺東之事，復不知賴○○失蹤云云，被告在前往古坑休息站之行蹤已遭檢警掌握後，即改辯以當日確有與被害人賴○○見面並駕車同往臺東，行經古坑休息站復行折返，被害人賴○○並在○○路公園下車，不知何往，另其本人則於同日另行駕車前往南投霧社的宮廟祭拜並四處遊玩云云；並於偵查中聲請羈押時仍辯稱係駕車與被害人賴○○欲同往臺東，行至古坑休息站因沒錢加油折返，載送被害人賴○○住處附近公園另欲找友人，嗣被告一人復自行駕車至南投埔里霧社宮廟，並明確陳稱僅有其一人前往霧社方向云云；待員警偕同證人己○○於104年9月26日尋獲裝有被害人賴○○屍體之藍色鐵桶後，被告始供承其於 104年7月12日自古坑休息站返回住處後，有與證人己○○同赴中橫公路大禹嶺處，而車上確有裝載鐵桶並予丟棄山區，惟辯以係應證人己○○之要求駕車至大禹嶺，其丟棄者非藍色鐵桶，且係裝盛垃圾，玻璃、雜物等物，而非裝盛被害人賴○○云云，復推稱係證人己○○要求其不要說出渠等有前往大禹嶺一事；再於警詢時經警一一提示監視器畫面影像、行車軌跡詢問及相關證人Karsiti於偵查中證述，被告復辯第四十五頁

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