—以424份民事证据为分析对象

万 喆

（1.中国人民大学法学院，北京 100872；2.中国刑事警察学院，沈阳 110854）

【摘 要】我国民事诉讼中的单位证言是一种理论界看法不一，诉讼实践中普遍运用的证据。相较而言，刑事诉讼中极少出现这类证据。单位证言的形成固然有其特定的历史、社会原因，但法律上的成因更值得探讨。从比较法的角度看，两大法系均存在一定规则或制度对公共机构甚至私人团体所作出的事实陈述、调查或结论予以认定。我国法律并未在民事诉讼中授权普通单位以调查权，加之诉讼实践将书证限定在当事人法律关系发生的过程中产生，这就导致只能通过单位证言这一证据类型实现类似功能。2015 年《民诉解释》第 115 条对单位证言的形式要件作出更加严格的规定。通过对 424 份单位证言的分析显示，此举并未减少实践中单位证言的运用，但在一定程度上加大了这类证据的获取难度，充实了法官裁判证据时的法律依据。我国应借鉴大陆法系委托调查制度，对单位证言的性质予以转化，并在获取主体、证明内容和形式要件方面予以限制和规范。

【关键词】单位证言；委托调查；实证分析；制度转换

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2021）03-0348-12

The legal origin and current application of institution testimony in China——An analysis based on 424 pieces of civil evidence. Wan Zhe, Renmin University of China Law School, Beijing, 100872. Criminal Investigation Police University of China, Shenyang, 110854.

【Abstract】Institution testimony in China’s civil litigation is a kind of evidence that is widely used in litigation practice, but at the same time, on which the academic circle has not reached consensus. Relatively speaking,such institution testimony is rarely used in criminal litigations. Although the formation of institution testimony has its specific historical and social reasons, the legal origin is worth more discussing. From the perspective of comparative law, in both civil law system and common law system, there are certain rules or systems that would permit the production of the statements of fact, investigations or conclusions made by public institutions or private groups. China’s law does not authorize the right of investigation to ordinary institutions in civil litigations. In addition, in judicial practice, the documentary evidence is strictly limited to the documents that are generated in the continuance of the legal relationship between the parties. Thus, in China, the only way to the realization of similar function is recognizing institution testimony. In 2015, Article 115 of <Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law> imposed stricter requirements on the form of institution testimony. Base on the analysis of 424 institution testimonies, this judicial interpretation does not reduce the use of institution testimony in practice, but to some extent increases the difficulty of obtaining such evidence, and enriches the legal basis which the judges could rely upon when determining the admissibility of institution testimony. China’s legal system should draw lessons from the entrustment investigation system instituted in civil law system. Specifically, the nature of institution testimony should be transformed, and it should be clearly restricted and regulated that who could be the institution to give testimony, what could be proved by institution testimony, and what form should be taken by institution testimony.

【Key Words】Institution testimony; Entrustment investigation; Empirical analysis; System transformation