Remarks, “Letter to Control Yuan Ombudsman Wang, 20130530″
Dear Ombudsman Mr Wang Chien-Shien:
The appeal for the custodial sentence of district court libel case, case number New Taipei District Court 101 Savant Yi 2318, was rejected by Taiwan High Court on April 30. The Taiwan High Court in the appeal rejecting document apparently mentioned that both the high court and the district court were aware of the defendant citing the Criminal Procedural Code 158 to describe a fact legally as evidence for the libel case of the defendant to be acquitted, that the district court should have known in 1983 the defendant was summoned by district court to testify against Mr Liao Cheng-Han for the rape case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, in which Mr Liao and Ms Chiu had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen resulting from the rape case and to have their daughter registered in Hong Kong government later in 1985. The defendant was underage at that time, only 12 years old and instead to be presented in court by his mother Mrs Wu Yu-Shing as the proxy to testify the rape case.
As to the citing of Criminal Procedural Code 158, defendant Mr David Chang alleged that since the district court thirty years ago had ever summoned twelve years old underage defendant to testify the rape case against Mr Liao Cheng-Han, the district court should have known that because of the rape case testified, in which the two privies Mr Liao Cheng-Han and Ms Chiu Shu-Chen had a daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen registered later in Hong Kong, and therefore it would have been conflicts in logic when the district court summoned Mr David Chang of the rape case witness thirty years ago to be defendant of libel case today for the libel plaintiff claiming that Ms Liao Yu-Wen was not daughter of Mr Liao Cheng-Han, with the affidavit thirty years ago to be rape case testimony and today to be conviction of a libel case.
The district court and the appellate court for the sued libel case, in one year summoned, rejected the appeal of, and convicted the defendant Mr David Chang, a related rape case witness thirty years ago with victim Ms Chiu Shu-Chen against Mr Liao Cheng-Han. The law court actually sentenced the witness of rape case to be a convicted libel criminal today of the Yahoo website blog, which was intended to be testifying the July 13, 2004 death case of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen, only for a reason that on the Yahoo website the defendant Mr David Chang of former witness of rape case referred the dead body of Ms Chiu Shu-Chen to her daughter Ms Liao Yu-Wen and then made the referee her daughter referred to her father Mr Liao Cheng-Han to have one year custodial sentence of libel verdict from the district court. It was miscarriage of justice for the conflicts in logic per se to sentence a witness to be the convicted. The law court apparently violated general conventions of law and common sense.