The document discusses the concept of double jeopardy under Philippine law. It lists the requisites for double jeopardy to apply, including that the accused was previously brought to trial in a court of competent jurisdiction under a valid complaint, was arraigned and pleaded to the charge, and the case was terminated without their express consent. It also notes that double jeopardy does not apply if a mistrial was granted due to lack of due process, and that an accused can appeal a conviction without it constituting double jeopardy.

3. -means that when a person is charged with an
offense and the case is terminated either by
acquittal or conviction or in any other manner
without the express consent of the accused, the
latter cannot again be charged with the same or
identical offense.

4. (1) Requisites- under present law and jurisprudence, the
accused is placed in double jeopardy if the following
conditions are present:
(a) He has been previously brought to trial;
(b) In a court of competent jurisdiction;
(c) Under a valid complaint or information;
(d) He has been arraigned and pleaded to the charge;
(e) He has been convicted or acquitted or the case against
him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent; and
(f) He is being charged again with the same offense.

5. (2) Rule in case of mistrial- the right cannot be invoked where a
petition for declaration of mistrial is granted on the ground
that the proceedings have been vitiated by lack of due
process.

6. (1) The government has no right, therefore, to appeal from a
judgment of acquittal.
(1) The accused, after having been convicted, may appeal to a
higher court, but the latter may raise the penalty imposed on
him by the lower court and such is not second jeopardy.

7. (1) For the same offense- under the first sentence, the
protection is against double jeopardy for the same offense
and not for the same act, provided he is charged with a
different offense except if the “act is punishable by a law
and an ordinance” in which the conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act.” “

8. (2) For the same act- the second sentence contemplates double
jeopardy of punishment for the same act and it applies
although the offenses charged are different, one constituting
a violation of a statute and the other of an ordinance.