Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy presupposes that in a previous trial the case has attached a jeopardy and such was terminated because:

1. the accused was either acquitted or convicted;
2. it was dismissed without his express consent.
   • Exception: Case where dismissal is with express consent or initiated by the accused and subsequent action will result in double jeopardy:
     • Insufficiency of evidence, such as demurrer to evidence.
       Effect if granted: As if there was a dismissal on the merits and this results in acquittal. Hence, double jeopardy will apply even with consent or initiated by the accused.
     • Unreasonable  delay in the proceedings: resulting in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
       This comes to the same effect as to adjudication on the merits, while it may not be dismissable on the ground of double jeopardy, it is dismissable on violation of speedy trial.

       Note that if there was an adjudication on the merits that results in dismissal/acquittal, it comes to effect that it was dismissed with prejudice. Thus, one cannot file anymore a complaint as it would result in Double Jeopardy.

Thus, any action based on the previous case or on the facts that transpired in the previous case would bar anyone from prosecuting the same accused for another offense. This is likewise a protection provided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

However, this right is not absolute. The exception would be:

1. if the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
2. the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discrovered only after a plea was entered in the fomer complaint or information;
3. the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except when offended party failed to appear during such arraignment [Sec. 7, Rule 117].

Two Kinds of Jeopardy

1. Double jeopardy for the same offense
2. Double jeopardy when an  act  is  punished  by  a  law  and  an  ordinance

Requisites of Double Jeopardy to property be invoked:

1. A first jeopardy must have attached;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or a frustration thereof
   [People v. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714- 20 (2003)]

Requisites for first jeopardy to attach:

1. Valid indictment;
2. Before a competent court;
3. Arraignment;
4. A valid plea entered; and
5. The accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case dismissed or otherwise validly terminated without his express consent [People v. Honrales, G.R. No. 182651 (2010)]

Effect
The conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution

1. for the offense charged, or
2. for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or
3. for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information [Sec. 7, Rule 117]

Double Jeopardy does not apply:

1. Administrative Cases
2. When the same criminal act gives rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses
3. Preliminary investigation (PI)
4. When the first offense was committed under the RPC and the second was committed under a special penal law
5. When two offenses are punished by two separate penal laws
6. The mere filing of two informations charging the same offense when there is not yet a conviction, acquittal, or termination without consent of any of the two cases [People v. Pineda, G.R. 44205 (1993)]

Source:

https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html#r117