Practice question
A withdrawal motion is denied. The prosecutor leaves the case entirely to private counsel and stops appearing or exercising control. Is that the arrangement Crespo authorizes? Assume no applicable court-approved written authorization allowing a private prosecutor to proceed without the public prosecutor under amended Rule 110, Section 5.
- Yes, denial automatically privatizes the criminal action.
- Yes, private counsel gains unrestricted public authority.
- Yes, the information disappears when the prosecutor leaves.
- No; the stated minimum is continued appearance and public direction and control.
- Yes, the accused becomes responsible for prosecution.
Legal references
- Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, main decision, prosecutor duties following denial of withdrawal: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jun1987/gr_l-53373_1987.html
- A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002, amending Rule 110, Section 5 effective May 1, 2002, court-approved written authority for private prosecution in absence of public prosecutor: https://chief.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_02-2-07-sc_2002.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.