作者：赵常成
作者介绍：南京大学法学院助理教授，法学博士
出版日期：2025年8月9日
内容提要 如何理解“程序法上的犯罪事实”，是刑事诉讼法学的基础问题与疑难问题之一。目前，我国多数观点主张自然事实说，但基于案例考察，这一学说存在认定标准模糊、认定结果不尽合理的内在缺陷，其深层症结在于自然主义方法过于单一。为强化认定标准的明确性，犯罪事实概念应当融入认知主义方法：检察机关的指控不仅描述了某一自然事实，同时在认知层面限定了审判的事实调查方向。为强化认定结果的合理性，犯罪事实概念应当融入规范主义方法：检察机关的指控不仅限定了有待审判的客观事实，同时在规范层面限定了审判的不法谴责方向。根据“自然—认知—规范”的三元认定框架，《刑事诉讼法》第186条中的“指控犯罪事实”应当解释为“指控方向限定下的自然事实”，犯罪事实同一性认定将遵循三项步骤：同一自然事实、同一调查方向与同一谴责方向。
关键词 犯罪事实同一性 诉讼标的 自然事实 变更罪名 控审分离
Abstract: Understanding the concept of ‘criminal facts in procedural law’ is one of the fundamental and complex issues in the criminal procedure law. At present, the dominant standpoint in China adheres to the natural facts theory. However, based on case studies, this theory suffers from inherent defects, including vague identification standards and unreasonable identification outcomes, which stem from the overly singular naturalistic approach. To enhance the clarity of identification standards, the concept of criminal facts should incorporate a cognitive approach, wherein the charges brought by the procuratorial organ not only describe a natural fact but also delineate the direction of factual investigation during adjudication at the cognitive level. To improve the reasonableness of identification outcomes, the concept of criminal facts should also integrate a normative approach, ensuring that the charges brought by the procuratorial organ not only define the objective facts to be adjudicated but also constrain the direction of unlawful condemnation at the normative level. Under the triadic identification framework of ‘natural-cognitive-normative’, the term ‘charges based on clear facts’ in article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Law should be interpreted as ‘natural facts constrained by an accusatory direction’. The determination of the identity of criminal facts follows three steps: the identity of natural fact, the identity of investigation direction, and the identity of condemnation direction.