G.R. No. L-24444 - People vs. Romeo Doriquez

The accused, Romeo Doriquez, was charged on August 28, 1964, with the offense of grave oral defamation before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
Six days later, on September 3, 1964, he was indicted for the offense of discharge of a firearm.

The information charged that on or about April 22, 1964, in Batad, Iloilo, Doriquez, with deliberate intent to discredit Attorney Sixto Demaisip, uttered defamatory statements before many witnesses.
The charged statement in the local language (with a provided English translation) contained insults and misrepresentations aimed at bringing discredit, disrepute, and public contempt upon Attorney Demaisip.

The indictment stated that on the same date and in the same municipality, Doriquez, armed with a revolver and without intent to kill, discharged the firearm twice at Attorney Demaisip.
The act was described as willful, unlawful, and felonious, with the specific elements of the case delineating the attempted application of violence without lethal intent.

That the court a quo lacked jurisdiction over grave oral defamation under Republic Act 3328, which purportedly enlarged the exclusive original jurisdiction of city and municipal courts.
That the subsequent filing for discharge of firearm would subject him to double jeopardy since he had previously been placed in jeopardy in connection with an earlier complaint for alarm and scandal (allegedly dismissed without his consent).

The trial court (court a quo) denied the motion to dismiss on March 8, 1965, and similarly denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 20, 1965.

The appellant’s appeal was challenged as premature since Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court stipulates that only final judgments or orders are appealable.
The Supreme Court noted that an interlocutory order, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss, is not appealable because it does not dispose of the entire cause or definitively adjudicate the rights of the parties.
Although the case raised substantial jurisdictional issues and questions of double jeopardy, alternative remedies were available:

Proceed to trial and incorporate the dismissal grounds in the defense on appeal from a final judgment.
File a petition for certiorari to challenge the trial court’s actions on merit—with grounds that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and abused its discretion regarding double jeopardy concerns.

Whether the Court of First Instance of Iloilo had proper jurisdiction over the offense of grave oral defamation, or if jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the municipal court of Batad, as argued by the appellant.
The issue involved interpreting the concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction boundaries set by the Judiciary Act of 1948 (sections 44(f) and 87(c)), as well as subsequent amendments and pertinent statutes including Republic Act 3828.

Whether the indictment for the discharge of a firearm, arising from the same factual incident that led to a prior complaint for alarm and scandal, improperly placed the defendant in peril of double jeopardy.
The examination focused on whether the offenses charged (discharge of firearm vs. alarm and scandal) were the same or sufficiently distinct in law to preclude a double jeopardy claim.

Whether the appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss (an interlocutory order) was premature and thus not subject to review until final judgment had been rendered.