8. Withdrawal of Information

Withdrawal of Information

Concept

Withdrawal of an information is the prosecutor’s request to end a criminal case already filed in court. It differs from dismissal of a complaint during preliminary investigation: an information is a written accusation subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. Once filed, it cannot be withdrawn by prosecutorial decision alone. (Rule 110, Sec. 4, Rules of Court)¹ (Crespo v. Mogul)

Governing provisions

Criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. After an information is filed, however, the court decides whether to grant a motion to withdraw it. The prosecutor’s control of the prosecution does not displace the court’s authority over the pending case. (Rule 110, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)² (Crespo v. Mogul)

Requisites / Rules

• Before filing: Under the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules, a prosecutor who finds no prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction dismisses the complaint with the authority or approval of the head of the prosecution office. The resolution must state the grounds; dismissal is without prejudice to refiling upon new or additional evidence from further case build-up. This is not withdrawal of an information. (Sec. 16, 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inqu…)³
• After filing: The prosecutor must seek the court’s approval to withdraw the information. The judge must make an independent assessment of the reasons and the record; a recommendation or reversal by a superior prosecutor does not automatically terminate the court case. (Crespo v. Mogul)
• Decision: The court may grant or deny withdrawal. If it denies the motion, the case remains pending notwithstanding the prosecutor’s changed assessment of the charge. (Crespo v. Mogul)

Distinctions

Withdrawal of an information concerns whether a filed charge should remain before the court. The judge’s assessment of that request is distinct from the judge’s personal determination of probable cause for an arrest warrant; the prosecutor’s certification alone does not suffice for the latter. (Crespo v. Mogul) (Roberts v. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113930, 5 March 1996)⁴

Key doctrines

The DOJ’s recognized authority to regulate preliminary investigations concerns the prosecutorial process. It does not make a prosecutor’s decision to withdraw a filed information binding on the court. The Supreme Court retains authority over court procedure and review for grave abuse of discretion. (Re: Draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service'S [dojnps] Rules on Preliminary Investigations, A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, 28 May 2024)⁵ (Meking v. Remulla, G.R. No. 280455, 11 November 2025)⁶ (Crespo v. Mogul)

Do not treat an offended party’s desistance as, by itself, a command to withdraw the information. The prosecution is under the public prosecutor’s direction and control, subject to the court’s authority once the case is filed. Article 16 of the CPRA separately provides that desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure to prosecute does not interrupt or terminate a disciplinary investigation; that provision is not the criminal-procedure rule on withdrawal of an information. (Rule 110, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)² (Art. 16, CPRA)⁷ (Crespo v. Mogul)

Bar tip

Ask first whether the information has been filed. Before filing, apply the governing prosecutorial rules; after filing, apply Crespo: the prosecutor moves, but the court independently decides. (Sec. 16, 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inqu…)³ (Crespo v. Mogul)