Case News
The TCC delivers its Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-4 (2026)
The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) delivered its judgment on the “Case on the Scope of the Principle of Indivisibility of Appeal in Criminal Proceedings” (TCC Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-4) on May 8, 2026.
Facts, Issues, and Procedure of the Case
Article 348, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended June 16, 2021) stipulates “Relevant parts of the partial judgment appealed are considered as appealed.” In Supreme Court Precedent 29-Shang-3382 (1940) (hereinafter the “disputed precedent”), it was ruled that, if the prosecuted matters involved a single act that gave rise to several offenses, and the parties appealed only the convicted parts and not those found not guilty, the indivisible nature of the trial entails that, pursuant to Article 340, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, the “disputed provision”), the matters related to the appealed parts are deemed appealed as well and the appellate court must therefore render a judgment based on all indicted matters. The aforementioned provision and precedent illustrate how the principle of indivisibility of appeal, under which an appeal against one part of a judgment may extend to other parts that are indivisibly connected with the appealed part, works in criminal proceedings. Questions arises as to whether such an extension in the scope of appeal in criminal cases violates the constitutional protection of individual liberty and the right to institute legal proceedings under Articles 8 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioner of this case was charged with offenses under the Soil and Water Conservation Act (hereinafter “Offense A”), the Slopeland Conservation and Utilization Act (hereinafter “Offense B”), the Anti-Corruption Act (hereinafter “Offense C”), and the offense of making false entries in business documents under the Article 215 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “Offense D”). The court of first instance deemed Offense B a special regulation of Offense A and convicted the petitioner of Offense B, and acquitted the petitioner of Offenses C and D due lack of evidence. The appellate court upheld said decision. Subsequently, the Supreme Court quashed thrice the decisions of the appellate court for retrial, during which the acquittal of Offense D was never appealed by the defense or prosecution. However, since the facts of Offense D was indivisible from the matters under appeal, it was considered appealed and remanded together, in accordance with the disputed provision and precedent, and under the principle of indivisibility of appeal. Upon the second retrial in 2010, the appellate court amended the indictment, changing the cited statute for Offense D to Articles 215 and 216 of the Criminal Code (circulation of documents with false entries). Ultimately, the appellate court convicted the petitioner with Offense D ultimately upon the fourth retrial in 2013. The prosecution’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2014. Subsequent extraordinary appeals were dismissed between 2014 and 2016. The petitioner lodged for constitutional review against the disputed provision and precedent, as well as a constitutional complaint against the final court decision in the case.
Following TCC Judgment 114-Hsien-Pan-1 (2025), Judgment 115-Hsien-Pan-4 (2026) was rendered on May 8, 2026 by a bench of five Justices (excluding the three Justices who refused to participate). Justice Tai-Lang LU authored this Judgment. Justice Po-Hsiang YU filed a concurring opinion. Justice Tsai-Chen TSAI filed an opinion dissenting in part.
Decision of the Court
The TCC held that the disputed provision is constitutional so long as it is construed not applicable to the parts that were found not guilty by the previous trial. The Court emphasized that the decision on whether the un-appealed parts are indivisible and should be transferred with the appeal must be based on the findings of the previous trial and the scope designated in the parties’ motion to appeal. When the parties do not appeal on the parts that were found not guilty, the TCC held that the principle of no trial without complaint (nullum iudicium sine accusatione) shall apply and said parts should not be subject to appellate trials.
The TCC declared the disputed precedent unconstitutional for violating the protection of individual liberty and the right to institute legal proceedings, under Articles 8 and 16 of the Constitution. The TCC noted that the disputed precedent allowed the scope of the appeal to exceed the parts where the parties have motioned to appeal, consequently violating the principle of no trial without complaint.
The TCC dismissed the constitutional complaint but ruled that the petitioner may seek remedy under Article 91, Paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (applied mutatis mutandis through Second Sentence of Article 92, Paragraph 2).
Notes:
- The full texts of the TCC Judgment as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions of individual Justices are available on the TCC website in Traditional Chinese. An English summary of this Judgment will be available later on the TCC English website.
- The TCC’s Case News is prepared by the Department of Clerks for the Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan) for information only and does not constitute as a part of the decision.
- In case of any conflict of meaning between the Traditional Chinese version and the translated English version, the Traditional Chinese version shall prevail.