Bangkok Legal Service

Order 5. The Plaintiff filed a criminal lawsuit against the Defendant alleging forgery of a will, and the Trial Court had already examined the merits of the claim and upheld the complaint. The Defendant testified in denial. During the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice in the civil case between the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case, it ruled that this was a genuine will. Consequently, the Trial Court ordered the suspension of the examination of evidence by the Plaintiff and Defendant. The aforementioned appellate decision involved the Plaintiff and Defendant as parties. The Defendant was acquitted, and the judgment was upheld. The Trial Court’s decision is valid. Although the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice in the civil case was binding on the Plaintiff and Defendant as parties in the civil case according to Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code, this is solely in the context of civil law, the issue is a criminal case, and there is no statutory provision that requires the consideration of facts as presented in the judgment of a civil case. The rules of evidence for criminal and civil cases differ; the court will weigh the evidence of each party to determine which party’s testimony is more credible. However, in exercising this discretion, the court will weigh all evidence until it is certain whether the Plaintiff’s testimony is true or false. According to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate decision in a civil case is merely evidence that the court may consider to determine whether the Defendant committed a crime or not. The court will consider only the facts of the civil case in question to reach a decision in a criminal case without the need to exhaust the evidentiary chain. Therefore, the Trial Court’s decision was improper.

The Investigating Officer, Huay Khwang Police Station.