Title
People vs. Romeo Doriquez
Case
G.R. No. L-24444
Decision Date
Jul 29, 1968
Romeo Doriquez appealed denial of motion to dismiss grave oral defamation and discharge of firearm charges, claiming double jeopardy and jurisdiction issues; SC dismissed as premature.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24444)

Charges and Proceedings

Romeo Doriquez was charged with grave oral defamation and discharge of a firearm. The defamation charges stemmed from allegations that he publicly disparaged Attorney Sixto Demaisip, claiming incompetence related to a case Doriquez was involved in. Six days later, he was charged with discharging a firearm at Attorney Demaisip. Upon arraignment, Doriquez pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Motion to Dismiss

On December 3, 1964, Doriquez sought to dismiss both charges, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction over the grave oral defamation charge following Republic Act 3328, which granted original exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses to city and municipal courts. Additionally, he argued his indictment for firearm discharge posed double jeopardy, as he had previously been charged in municipal court for alarm and scandal based on similar facts. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss on March 8, 1965, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 20, 1965.

Prematurity of Appeal

The appellate court determined that the appeal was premature based on Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, which restricts appeals to final judgments. The court reiterated that interlocutory orders, such as a denial of a motion to dismiss, are not appealable as they do not fully dispose of the case. Allowing appeals on such orders could result in delays and multiple appeals within the same case, which is contrary to the principles of expeditious justice.

Alternative Remedies for Doriquez

The court outlined two alternative remedies available to Doriquez following the denial of his motion for reconsideration: proceeding to trial immediately and incorporating his dismissal arguments as part of his defense, or filing a petition for certiorari to contest the jurisdiction and claim of double jeopardy. The court decided to treat Doriquez's appeal as a petition for certiorari to address the substantive issues at hand.

Jurisdictional Issues

Doriquez contended that the municipal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the offense of grave oral defamation, claiming that under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, the maximum penalty falls within the jurisdiction of municipal courts. However, the court clarified that based on the amendments to the Judiciary Act of 1948, the jurisdiction of municipal and city courts alongside the courts of first instance includes offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six months but not exceeding three years.

Double Jeopardy Argument

Doriquez's argument regarding double jeopardy, claiming overlapping charges with the alarm and scandal complaint, was deemed untenable. The court explained that for double jeopardy to apply, there must be an ide

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.