Practice question
An offended party's counsel intervenes for civil liability in an RTC case. The public prosecutor is absent. Counsel says the intervention order alone allows him to conduct the entire criminal trial independently, although there is no written authorization from the designated prosecution official and no court approval of such authorization. Is that argument sufficient?
- Yes; civil intervention and authorization to prosecute are identical
- No; Section 16 participation alone does not satisfy the separate authorization requirements
- Yes; the client's willingness cures every missing authorization
- Yes; prosecutor absence automatically supplies all requirements
- No; private counsel can never be authorized to prosecute
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://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.