Practice question
A properly authorized private prosecutor's authority is expressly revoked. Counsel claims the words 'up to the end of trial' make revocation ineffective. Is that claim correct?
- No; the amendment expressly permits revocation or withdrawal
- Yes; the authority is irrevocable once issued
- Yes; only the client may revoke public authority
- Yes; the trial's start makes all conditions irrelevant
- No; all earlier authorized hearings automatically become void
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rule110 §§2–4,5 private-crime clauses,10,15–16 and Rule111; read §5 first paragraph with AM02-2-07-SC amendment.
- https://chief.lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_02-2-07-sc_2002.html — A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002, effective May 1, 2002 (written authorization and court approval of private prosecution).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_175999_2015.html — Lai v. People, G.R. No. 175999, July 1, 2015, MAIN decision (prosecutorial control and authorized private prosecution).
- https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/jun1987/gr_l-53373_1987.html — Crespo v Mogul, GRL53373, June30 1987, ENBANC MAIN decision (judicial control after filing).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.