‣ The clause “illegal act or omission of any public official” encompasses any crime committed by a public official or employee.

e. Its
reach is so vast that there is no requirement that the act or omission be related to or be connected with the performance of
official duty. The rationale for this grant of vast authority is to insulate the Ombudsman from the corrupt influences of interested
persons who are able to sway decisions in their favor, and thus thwart the efforts to prosecute offenses committed while in office
and to penalize erring employees and officials.
‣ This power of investigation granted to the Ombudsman by the 1987 Constitution and The Ombudsman Act is not exclusive but
is shared with other similarly authorized government agencies, such as the PCGG and judges of municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts. The power to conduct preliminary investigation on charges against public employees and officials is
likewise concurrently shared with the Department of Justice. Despite the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991, the
Ombudsman retains concurrent jurisdiction with the Office of the President and the local Sanggunians to investigate complaints
against local elective officials.
‣ In the exercise of its duties, the Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary authority. His power is not limited merely to
receiving, processing complaints, or recommending penalties. He is to conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon
witnesses and require production of evidence and place respondents under preventive suspension. This includes the power to
impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or employee.
‣ In the event that a criminal complaint is filed with the Ombudsman, it is mandatory for it to conduct a preliminary
investigation?
‣ NO. The determination by the Ombudsman of probable cause or of whether there exists a reasonable ground to believe that a
crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, is usually done after the conduct of a preliminary
investigation. However, a preliminary investigation is by no means mandatory. Thus, the Ombudsman need not conduct a
preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint. The Court has undoubtedly acknowledged the powers of the Ombudsman
to dismiss a complaint outright without a preliminary investigation. We reiterate that the Ombudsman has full discretion to
determine whether a criminal case should be filed, including whether a preliminary investigation is warranted. (Angeles vs
Ombudsman 2012)
‣ Does the Ombudsman have exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecution cases against
public officers within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan?
‣ NO. It has primary jurisdiction. While the DOJ has general jurisdiction. (Note there is no concurrent jurisdiction here since the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is preferred and it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency, the investigation
of such cases)
‣ SEE — DOJ vs Liwag, G.R. No. 149311, February 11, 2005
‣ Congress itself acknowledged the significant role played by the Office of Ombudsman when it enacted Republic Act No. 6770.
Section 15 (1) of said law gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and
authorizes him to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency, the investigation of such cases. This power to
take over a case at any time is not given to other investigative bodies. All this means that the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is notco-equal with other investigative bodies, such as the DOJ. The
Ombudsman can delegate the power but the delegate cannot claim equal power.
‣ Clearly, therefore, while the DOJ has general jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of cases involving violations of the
Revised Penal Code, this general jurisdiction cannot diminish the plenary power and primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to
investigate complaints specifically directed against public officers and employees. The Office of the Ombudsman is a
constitutional creation. In contrast, the DOJ is an extension of the executive department, bereft of the constitutional
independence granted to the Ombudsman.
‣ Petitioners cannot seek sanctuary in the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. While the doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means
equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter, the settled rule is that the body or agency that first takes cognizance of
the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. Thus, assuming there is concurrent jurisdiction between
the Ombudsman and the DOJ in the conduct of preliminary investigation, this concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained
freedom to file the same case before both bodies or be viewed as a contest between these bodies as to which will first complete
the investigation. In the present case, it is the Ombudsman before whom the complaint was initially filed. Hence, it has the
authority to proceed with the preliminary investigation to the exclusion of the DOJ.
‣ Since the DOJ and Ombudsman both have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation over cases against public
officers, what if two complaint are filed against public officers involving offenses cognizable before the
Sandiganbayan, one before the Ombudsman and the other before the DOJ, and the Ombudsman has already started
conducting a preliminary investigation can the DOJ still take cognizance of the case?
NO. The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the DOJ in the conduct of preliminary investigation over the cases filed against the
respondents would not promote an orderly administration of justice. When one is hailed before an investigative body on specific
charges, the very act of filing said complaint for preliminary investigation immediately