G.R. No. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO DORIQUEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant Romeo Doriquez was charged with two separate crimes before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. First, for Grave Oral Defamation, committed on April 22, 1964, by uttering defamatory words against Attorney Sixto Demaisip in the presence of many persons. Second, for Discharge of Firearm, committed on the same date, by discharging a revolver twice at the same Attorney Demaisip. Doriquez pleaded not guilty to both charges. He filed a motion to dismiss both informations, arguing that: (1) the court had no jurisdiction over the grave oral defamation case due to Republic Act 3828, which enlarged the jurisdiction of municipal courts; and (2) the charge for discharge of firearm placed him in double jeopardy because a prior case for “alarm and scandal” based on the same facts had been dismissed without his consent in the municipal court. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Doriquez appealed these interlocutory orders.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal from the orders denying the motion to dismiss is proper.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the offense of Grave Oral Defamation.
3. Whether the filing of the information for Discharge of Firearm constitutes double jeopardy.

RULING

1. The appeal is premature. The orders denying the motion to dismiss are interlocutory and not appealable under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, as they do not finally dispose of the case. The Supreme Court, however, treated the appeal as a petition for certiorari to resolve all issues definitively.
2. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction. The appellant’s claim that the municipal court has exclusive original jurisdiction is erroneous. Under the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act 3828, municipal/city courts and courts of first instance have concurrent original jurisdiction over offenses where the penalty is imprisonment for more than six months but not exceeding three years, or a fine of more than P200 but not exceeding P3,000. Since grave oral defamation is punishable by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (imprisonment exceeding six months), the Court of First Instance properly exercised concurrent jurisdiction.
3. There is no double jeopardy. The offense of Discharge of Firearm is distinct and separate from the previously dismissed charge of Alarm and Scandal. They are defined by different laws with different essential elements. The rule against double jeopardy applies only to the same or identical offense. Since each crime involves an important act not an essential element of the other, prosecution for one does not bar prosecution for the other, even if they arise from the same facts.
The appeal was dismissed and the case was remanded to the trial court for immediate trial on the merits. Costs were imposed on the appellant.