1) The setting: what a “petition for review” means in Philippine criminal procedure

In Philippine practice, “petition for review” in court proceedings commonly refers to review that is discretionary (the reviewing court may deny it outright), as distinguished from an ordinary appeal as a matter of right.

In criminal cases, the phrase most often appears in these contexts:

Rule 42 (Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals) Used when a case is elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) from an RTC decision rendered in the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction (e.g., cases appealed to the RTC from the MTC/MCTC/MeTC and then further elevated to the CA).
Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court) A discretionary review by the Supreme Court (SC), typically from a CA decision (including criminal cases).

Separately (and often confused with the court process), there is a “petition for review” within the DOJ (review by the Secretary of Justice of prosecutors’ resolutions). That is an executive review mechanism, not a court petition, and the “withdrawal” rules and actors differ. This article focuses on court petitions for review in criminal cases.

2) The core principle: only the party who filed the petition (the “petitioner”) can move to withdraw it

A motion to withdraw a petition for review is, at base, a request by the petitioner to abandon the petition they themselves filed.

So the general answer is:

The petitioner—through counsel of record (or through the proper government counsel when the People is a party)—is the one who can file a motion to withdraw the petition for review.

But in criminal cases, who the petitioner can legally be and who is authorized to act for that petitioner depends on whether the petitioner is:

the accused, or
the People of the Philippines (the prosecution), or
the private offended party (usually only as to the civil aspect).

3) If the petitioner is the accused: who can file the withdrawal

3.1 The accused (as petitioner)

If the accused filed the petition for review (e.g., to challenge a conviction or an adverse ruling), then the motion to withdraw may be filed by:

The accused personally, or
The accused’s counsel of record (lawyer who formally appears in the case).

3.2 Practical and procedural expectations

Although a lawyer can generally file motions on a client’s behalf, courts often expect that a withdrawal that effectively abandons the remedy and lets the adverse judgment become final is done with clear authority. In practice, this is commonly shown by:

a motion signed by counsel, stating it is with the accused’s express conformity, and sometimes
the accused’s signature (or a separate written conformity/authorization), especially when consequences are serious (e.g., conviction becomes final and executory).

3.3 Effect of withdrawal by the accused

Withdrawing the petition usually results in:

Dismissal of the petition for review; and
The assailed decision (RTC/CA) becoming final and executory, subject to the usual rules on finality, entry of judgment, and execution.

If the petition was the last barrier to execution of a penalty, withdrawal can accelerate enforcement (e.g., commitment to serve sentence).

4) If the petitioner is the People of the Philippines: who can file the withdrawal

This is where Philippine criminal appellate practice becomes highly specific.

4.1 The “People” is not represented by the private complainant or private prosecutor on appeal

Even if a private complainant has a private prosecutor at trial (under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor), the private prosecutor does not represent “the People” in appellate courts.

4.2 Proper government counsel depends on the court level

In criminal cases at the appellate level:

Before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is generally the counsel for the People of the Philippines in criminal cases.
At trial and (commonly) in RTC proceedings before elevation to CA/SC: The public prosecutor (DOJ/NPS or local prosecution service) prosecutes the criminal action.

Because a motion to withdraw a petition for review is an appellate pleading, when the People is the petitioner in the CA or SC, the motion should be filed by:

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through the assigned Solicitor, as counsel of record for the People.

4.3 Who cannot withdraw for the People (in CA/SC criminal cases)

Ordinarily, the following cannot validly file a motion to withdraw a petition for review on behalf of the People in the CA/SC:

the private offended party,
the private prosecutor,
the investigating prosecutor,
the trial prosecutor, if the OSG is already counsel of record in the appellate court.

The reason is institutional: on appeal, the People is represented by the State’s appellate counsel, and the conduct of appeals (including abandonment/withdrawal) is generally within that counsel’s authority, subject to the court’s control.

4.4 Limits: the People’s right to appeal is itself limited in criminal cases

Even before “who can withdraw” matters, note that prosecution appeals are constrained by fundamental principles like double jeopardy. For example, as a rule, the People cannot appeal an acquittal if doing so would place the accused twice in jeopardy, though there are narrow exceptions in extraordinary remedies when the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction.

Where the People’s petition for review is procedurally available, the OSG’s authority to pursue or abandon it still requires court approval for withdrawal (see Part 7).

5) If the private offended party is the petitioner: when and who can withdraw

5.1 The private offended party is not the “prosecution” in the criminal action

In a criminal case captioned “People of the Philippines vs. X,” the private complainant is not the nominal criminal plaintiff. The criminal action is prosecuted in the name of the People.

5.2 But the private offended party may litigate or appeal the civil aspect

Philippine practice recognizes that the private offended party has interests in the civil liability arising from the offense. Depending on the posture of the case (e.g., acquittal but civil liability imposed; conviction with disputed damages; or independent civil action), the private offended party may be able to seek review as to the civil aspect, even when the criminal aspect is no longer reviewable by the People due to double jeopardy constraints.

If the private offended party filed the petition for review (properly limited to the civil aspect where applicable), then the motion to withdraw may be filed by:

The private offended party (as petitioner), through their counsel of record, or personally if unrepresented.

5.3 Important caution: “withdrawing the petition” may waive civil relief

If the private offended party withdraws a petition that is the vehicle to challenge civil liability findings, the civil award (or denial) in the assailed decision may become final. In many cases, that is effectively a waiver of the remaining appellate recourse for that civil claim within that case.

6) Special situations: multiple petitioners, substitution, and authority issues

6.1 Multiple petitioners

If there are multiple petitioners (rare but possible in consolidated civil-aspect petitions, or multiple accused with aligned petitions), withdrawal rules depend on who is withdrawing:

One petitioner may withdraw their own petition/participation, but the case may proceed for the others if their petitions remain and are procedurally viable.
If the petition is joint and indivisible in practical effect, the court may require clarity on whether withdrawal is by all petitioners or only some.

6.2 Death of the accused (and its effect)

If the accused dies during the pendency of a criminal case, different consequences follow depending on the stage and the nature of liability. This can render a petition moot or require dismissal on grounds other than “withdrawal.” A “motion to withdraw” may not be the clean procedural vehicle; instead, a motion to dismiss due to death/mootness is typical.

6.3 Authority of counsel

A counsel of record is presumed authorized to act for the client in procedural matters. But courts can require proof of authority where:

the act is effectively a surrender of a substantial right (abandoning review), or
there are red flags of non-consent or conflict.

For government, authority is determined by office mandate (e.g., OSG appearing for the People).

7) Withdrawal is not automatic: it requires court action (and the court may impose terms)

7.1 A petition for review is not withdrawn by mere filing of a motion

Because the petition for review is a matter filed with the appellate court, it remains pending until the court acts. The typical outcome is an order/resolution:

granting the motion and dismissing the petition, or
denying it (uncommon, but possible in exceptional circumstances), or
granting it with conditions (e.g., addressing costs, clarifying scope, or protecting public interest).

7.2 The appellate court retains control, especially in criminal cases

Courts may take a stricter view in criminal matters because public interest is implicated. While withdrawal by the accused is usually allowed (it is their remedy to abandon), courts may still ensure:

the accused understands consequences,
the motion is not a product of fraud, coercion, or improper inducement, and
the withdrawal does not undermine the integrity of proceedings.

For the People (through the OSG), courts may be attentive to whether withdrawal is consistent with the State’s role and the interests of justice, while still respecting the State counsel’s litigation discretion.

8) Timing: when a motion to withdraw may be filed and what timing changes

8.1 Before the petition is given due course

If the petition has not yet been acted upon (e.g., no due course, no requirement to comment), withdrawal is usually straightforward.

8.2 After due course, after comment, or after submission for decision

The later the case stage, the more likely the court will:

require clearer justification, and/or
issue a more detailed resolution.

Even then, withdrawal is commonly granted, but the court’s interest in orderly procedure increases.

8.3 After promulgation/decision by the reviewing court

Once the appellate court has already rendered judgment, “withdrawal” is generally no longer the right concept; the case is decided. Remedies would shift to motions for reconsideration, entry of judgment issues, etc.

9) Form and contents: what a motion to withdraw typically contains (Philippine appellate practice)

While formatting varies, a proper motion usually includes:

Caption and title “Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review” (or “Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw…”)
Appearance and authority
- For the accused/private party: counsel’s appearance; statement that motion is filed with client’s authority; often client conformity.
- For the People: filed by the OSG as counsel of record.
Grounds (examples, not exhaustive)
- petitioner no longer wishes to pursue the remedy,
- supervening events mooting the issues,
- settlement/compromise only as to civil aspect (compromise does not extinguish criminal liability except where the law allows; but it can affect civil claims),
- strategic/litigation discretion (more typical for OSG statements, expressed in appropriate professional terms).
Prayer
- that the petition be considered withdrawn and dismissed.
Proof of service
- showing service on the adverse party/parties as required by the rules.
Conformity/verification (as needed)
- Motions generally are not verified unless required, but party conformity is often attached for prudence where rights are waived.

10) The short answers, arranged by “who”

A) Accused filed the petition for review

Who can file the motion to withdraw?

The accused, through counsel of record (commonly with accused’s express conformity), or the accused personally.

B) The People of the Philippines filed the petition for review (in CA/SC)

Who can file the motion to withdraw?

The Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel of record for the People in appellate courts.

C) Private offended party filed a petition for review (generally limited to civil aspect when proper)

Who can file the motion to withdraw?

The private offended party, through counsel of record (or personally).

D) Private prosecutor wants to withdraw “for the People”

Who can file it?

Generally not the private prosecutor in the CA/SC; withdrawal for the People should come from the OSG as appellate counsel.

11) Key takeaways in one line each

Only the petitioner can seek to withdraw the petition for review.
In criminal appeals in the CA/SC, the People is represented by the OSG, so withdrawal for the People is an OSG act.
The private offended party’s participation is typically strongest in the civil aspect, and any withdrawal they file generally affects their civil relief, not the criminal prosecution in the name of the People.
Withdrawal is effective only upon court approval and typically results in dismissal of the petition and finality of the assailed judgment.