刑事訴訟法第二百十二條明文法官與檢察官均得實施勘驗，以發現真實。然而，此種規定是否恰當，就檢察官係當事人一方及法院為事實認定者來說，恐有疑義。又關於檢察官勘驗筆錄之證據能力，最高法院向來認為其為傳聞陳述，如於勘驗時已通知被告或其律師在場，即得依刑事訴訟法第一百五十九條之一第二項規定取得證據能力；惟此種見解亦存在混淆傳聞法理之瑕疵。此外，在無令狀之情況下實施身體檢查是否符合正當程序的要求，也是一個值得深入探討的課題。

The Article 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of ROC states that both judges and prosecutors may conduct an inquest in order to discover the truth. However, whether this provision is appropriate might be contestable since the prosecutor is one of the parties in a case and the judge plays the role as a factfinder. Additionally, regarding the prosecutor’s ability to examine the out-of-court statement, the ROC Supreme Court has always considered it as an inadmissible hearsay. If the defendant or his lawyer has been notified by the prosecutor to be present at the time of the investigation, evidential capacity can be obtained and the statement can be ruled as admissible at trial in accordance with the Item 2 of Article 159-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this opinion is flawed in terms of the wrongful application on hearsay rules. Furthermore, whether the execution of a physical examination without a warrant violates the principle of due process is also a topic worthy of in-depth discussion.