G.R. No. 111616 February 4, 1994
MAYOR ARNULFO NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. HON. AUGUSTO N. FELIX, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 64, Tarlac, Tarlac and HON. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF TARLAC, respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine National Police requested the Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor to investigate petitioner, the Municipal Mayor of Ramos, Tarlac, for the death of Severino Aquino at the Ramos Police Station. A subpoena was issued. During the pendency of this investigation, the PNP filed a complaint with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which directed petitioner’s arrest. Petitioner posted bail. The MCTC, after preliminary investigation, found probable cause for murder and recommended bail. The Provincial Prosecutor approved the filing of an information for murder with no bail recommended, which was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC initially recalled the warrant and remanded the case for further preliminary investigation due to the MCTC’s failure to conduct the second stage. Petitioner requested the Secretary of Justice to have his preliminary investigation conducted in Manila, which was denied. A panel of prosecutors issued a resolution finding probable cause and filed an amended information. The RTC admitted the amended information and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail. Petitioner moved to remand, contending there was no preliminary investigation and that the Ombudsman, not the Provincial Prosecutor, had jurisdiction because the proper court was the Sandiganbayan. The RTC denied the motion and committed petitioner to detention. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended information filed by the provincial prosecutor and in directing petitioner’s arrest, specifically, whether the provincial prosecutor has authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the offense allegedly committed by petitioner, a Municipal Mayor.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The provincial prosecutor has authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Court held that for the Ombudsman to have primary jurisdiction under Section 15(1) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the offense must be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1861, for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction, the offense must be committed by a public officer in relation to his office and the penalty prescribed must be higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years, or a fine of P6,000. While the murder charge meets the penalty requirement, the alleged act was not committed in relation to petitioner’s office as Municipal Mayor. The Court found that the alleged killing could not be construed as falling under any of the mayor’s official functions under the Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is primary, not exclusive, meaning it is concurrent with other investigative agencies like the provincial prosecutor. The word “may” in the Ombudsman Act indicates a discretionary, not mandatory, authority to take over investigations. Therefore, the provincial prosecutor validly conducted the preliminary investigation, and the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the information and ordering the arrest.