Definition Of Double Jeopardy

Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. – When an accused  has  been  convicted  or  acquitted,  or  the  case  against  him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  upon  a  valid  complaint  or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to  sustain  a  conviction  and  after  the  accused  had  pleaded  to  the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of  the  case  shall  be  a  bar  to  another  prosecution  for  the  offense charged,  or  for  any  attempt  to  commit  the  same  or  frustration thereof,  or  for  any  offense  which  necessarily  includes  or   is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.

However,  the  conviction  of  the  accused  shall  not  be  a  bar  to another prosecution  for  an offense  which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following instances:
 
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
 
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or
 
(c)  the  plea  of  guilty  to  the  lesser  offense  was  made  without  the consent  of  the  prosecutor  and  of  the  offended  party  except  as provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116.
 
In  any  of  the  foregoing  cases,  where  the  accused  satisfies  or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense.
 

WHAT   IS   JEOPARDY   AND   WHAT   IS   THE   RULE   ON   DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     Jeopardy  is  the  peril  in  which  a  person  is  placed  when  he  is regularly   charged   with   a   crime   before   a   tribunal   properly organized and competent to try him

>     The rule on double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminate either by conviction or acquittal,  or  in  any  other  manner  without  the  consent  of  the
accused,  the  latter  cannot  again  be  charged  with  the  same  or identical offense
 

WHAT ARE THE 2 KINDS OF JEOPARDY? 

1.    That no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense
2.    If  an  act  is  punished  by  a  law  and  an  ordinance,  conviction  or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act
 

WHAT  ARE  THE  REQUISITES  FOR  THE  ACCUSED  TO  RAISE  THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

1.    A first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second
2.    The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
3.    The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt to commit the offense or a
frustration thereof
 

WHAT   ARE   THE   REQUISITES   FOR   THE   FIRST   JEOPARDY   TO ATTACH?

1.    There is a valid complaint or information
2.    Court of competent jurisdiction
3.    Arraignment
4.    Plea
5.    The defendant is acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed or terminated without his express consent
 
N.B:    The  judgment  should  not  only  be  final  and  executory  but  also  be promulgated before there could be a valid jeopardy.
 

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING RULE?

>     There  are  two  exceptions  to  the  foregoing  rule,  and  double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused—
1.    If there is insufficiency of evidence to support the charge against him, and
2.    Where  there  has  been  an  unreasonable  delay  in  the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
 

A  CRIME  WAS  COMMITTED  IN  MAKATI.    THE  CASE  WAS  FILED  IN PASAY.        WHEN    THE    PROSECUTION    REALIZED    THAT    THE COMPLAINT  SHOULD HAVE BEEN  FILED IN MAKATI,  IT  FILED  THE CASE IN MAKATI.  CAN THE ACCUSED INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, the court in Pasay has no jurisdiction, therefore, the accused was in no danger of being placed in jeopardy
>     The first jeopardy didn’t validly attach
 

FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY, WHEN IS A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION VALID?

>     A complaint or information is valid if it can support a judgment of conviction
>     If  the  complaint  or  information  is  not  valid,  it  would  violate  the right  of  the  accused  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation against him
>     If  he  is  convicted  under  this  complaint  or  information,  the conviction is null and void and hence there is no first jeopardy
 

X WAS CHARGED WITH QUALIFIED THEFT.  X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION.  THE CASE WAS  DISMISSED.    SUBSEQUENTLY,  THE  PROSECUTION  FILED  A CORRECTED INFORMATION.  CAN X PLEAD DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No,  the  first  jeopardy  didn’t  attach  because  the  first  information was not valid
 

X   WAS   CHARGED   WITH   THEFT.   DURING   THE   TRIAL,   THE PROSECUTION  WAS  ABLE  TO  PROVE  ESTAFA.    X  WAS  ACQUITTED OF  THEFT.    CAN  X  BE  PROSECUTED  FOR  ESTAFA  LATER  WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     Yes
>     For  jeopardy  to  attach,  the  basis  is  the  crime  charged  in  the complaint or information, and the one proved at the trial
>     In this case, the crime charged in the first information was theft.  X  was  therefore  placed  in  jeopardy  of  being  convicted  of  theft.  Since  estafa  is  not  an  offense  which  is  included  or  necessarily includes theft, X can still be prosecuted for estafa without placing him in double jeopardy
 

THE   ESTAFA   CASE AGAINST   C   WAS   DISMISSED   BUT   THE DISMISSAL  CONTAINED  A  RESERVATION  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  FILE ANOTHER ACTION.  CAN ANOTHER ESTAFA CASE BE FILED AGAINST X WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     Yes
>     To  raise  the  defense  of  double  jeopardy,  the  first  jeopardy  must have been validly terminated

>     This  means  that  there  must  have  been  either  a  conviction  or acquittal, or an unconditional dismissal of the case
>     A provisional dismissal, such as this one, doesn’t validly terminate the first jeopardy
 
NOTE:  in the second kind of jeopardy, the first jeopardy can validly only be terminated either by conviction or acquittal and not by the dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused.
 

X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT.  ON THE DAY OF THE TRIUAL, THE PROSECUTOR AND THE WITNESSES FAILED TO APPEAR.  COUNSEL FOR   ACCUSED   MOVED   TO   DISMISS   THE   CASE.      THE   COURT DISMISSED  THE  CASE  PROVISIONALLY.    SUBSEQUENTLY  X  WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT AGAIN.  CAN X INVOKE JEOPARDY?

>     No,  the  case  was  dismissed  upon  motion  of  counsel  for  the accused, so it wasn’t dismissed without the express consent 
>     Moreover, the dismissal was only provisional, which is not a valid termination of the first jeopardy
>     In  order  to  validly  terminate  the  jeopardy,  the  dismissal  must have been unconditional
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  SLIGHT  PHYSICAL  INJURIES.    ON  HIS MOTION,  THE  CASE  WAS  DISMISSED  DURING  TRIAL.    ANOTHER CASE  FOR  ASSAULT  UPON  A  PERSON  IN  AUTHORITY  WAS  FILED AGAINST HIM.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, the first jeopardy wasn’t terminated through either conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the express consent of X
>     The first case was dismissed upon the motion of X himself
>     Therefore, he cannot invoke double jeopardy
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  THEFT.    DURING  TRIAL,  THE  EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE OFFENSE COMMITTED WAS ACTUALLY ESTAFA.  WHAT SHOULD THE JUDGE DO?

>     The judge should order the substitution of the complaint for theft with a new one charging estafa
>     Upon filing of the substituted complaint, the judge should dismiss the original complaint.  If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the
court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense
 

WHAT  ARE  THE  REQUISITES  FOR  A  VALID  SUBSTITUTION  OF  A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION?

1.    No judgment has been rendered
2.    The  accused  cannot  be  convicted  of  the  offense  charged  or  any other offense necessarily included in the offense charged
3.    The accused will not be placed in double jeopardy
 

X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.  ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, THE  PROSECUTION  FAILED  TO  APPEAR.    THE  COURT  DISMISSED THE CASE ON  THE GROUND OF VIOLATION  OF  THE  RIGHT OF  THE ACCUSED  TO  SPEEDY  TRIAL.    X  WAS  LATER  CHARGED  WITH MURDER.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, the first jeopardy was not validly terminated
>     The  judge  who  has  not  dismissed  the  case  on  the  ground  of violation of the right of X to speedy trial committed grave abuse of discretion  in  dismissing  the  case  after  the  prosecution  failed  to
appear once
>     This is not a valid dismissal because it deprives the prosecution of due process 

>     When  the  judge  gravely  abuses  the  discretion  in  dismissing  a case, the dismissal is not valid
     Therefore, X cannot invoke double jeopardy
 

DISTINGUISH ACQUITTAL AND DISMISSAL

>     Acquittal  is  a  discharge  after  a  trial,  or  an  attempt  to  have  one, upon  the  merits.    It  is  always  on  the  merits.    The  accused  is acquitted  because  the  evidence  doesn’t  show  his  guilt  beyond reasonable doubt.
>     On  the  other  hand,  dismissal  is  when  the  case  is  terminated otherwise upon the merits thereof, as when the dismissal is based on  the  allegation  that  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction,  either  upon the  subject  matter  or  the  territory,  or  that  the  complaint  or information  is  not  valid  or  sufficient,  or  upon  any  ground  that doesn’t decide the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is
or isn’t guilty of the offense charged
 

WHEN  IS  A  DISMISSAL  OF  THE  CASE,  EVEN  WITH  EXPRESS CONSENT  OF  THE  ACCUSED,  EQUIVALENT  TO  AN  ACQUITTAL, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A BAR TO A SECOND JEOPARDY?

>     For a dismissal to be a bar under double  jeopardy, it must have the effect of acquittal
>     As  a  general  rule,  dismissal  upon  motion  of  the  accused  or  his counsel  negates  the  application  of  double  jeopardy  because  the motion of the accused amounts to an express consent
>     However,  such  a  dismissal  even  with  the  express  consent  of  the accused may constitute a bar to double jeopardy in the following cases

1.    Where  there  is  insufficiency  of  evidence  given  by  the prosecution to support the charge against him
2.    Where  there  has  been  an  unreasonable  delay  in  the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial

>     Consequently,  the  dismissal  amounts  to  an  acquittal  and  would bar a second jeopardy in the cases below

1.    Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed  by  the  accused  after  the  prosecution  has  rested, which  has  the  effect  of  a  judgment  on  the  merits  and operates as an acquittal
2.    Where  the  dismissal  is  made,  also  on  motion  of  the accused,  because  of  the  denial  of  his  right  to  a  speedy trial, which is in effect a failure to prosecute
 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  NOLLE  PROSEQUI?    IS  IT  THE  SAME  AS  AN ACQUITTAL?

>     It is the discontinuance of a criminal procedure by the prosecuting officer, with the consent of the owner
>     A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesn’t bar a  subsequent prosecution for the same
offense
>     It is not a final disposition of the case
>     Rather it partakes of the nature of a non-suit or discontinuance in a civil suit and leaves the matter in the same condition in which it was before the commencement of the prosecution
 

MAY   THE   COURT   DISMISS   THE   CASE   ON   MOTION   NOLLE PROSEQUI?

>     The  trial  court  may  dismiss  a  case  on  a  motion  nolle  prosequi  if the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed time and is deprived of his right to speedy trial or disposition of the case on
account  of  unreasonable  or  capricious  delay  caused  by  the prosecution
>     People v. Espidol doctrine
 

WHY  IS  THERE  A  REQUIREMENT  FOR  IT  TO  BE  CAPRICIOUS  AND UNREASONABLE?

>     There are some delays of the prosecution which are not capricious and unreasonable
>     It  may  be  caused  by  some  other  valid  reasons—prejudicial question, new evidence or witnesses, etc.
 

WHEN A CASE IS DISMISSED UPON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, MAY HE STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?

>     While there have been conflicting rulings of the SC, the prevailing doctrine is that the accused can still be prosecuted for the same offense  if  he  moves  to  dismiss  on  the  grounds  of  lack  of
jurisdiction,  or  insufficiency  of  complaint  or  information  because he is deemed to have waived his right against a second jeopardy, or  that  he  is  estopped  from  maintaining  that  the  court  had  no
jurisdiction or that the complaint wasn’t sufficient
 

WHEN WILL DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE FIRST CASE NOT BAR A SECOND JEOPARDY?

1.    The  dismissal  must  be  sought  by  the  defendant  personally  or through his counsel 

2.    Such  dismissal  must  not  be  on  the  merits  and  must  not necessarily amount to an acquittal
 

BEFORE     THE     PROSECUTION     COULD     FINISH     PRESENTING EVIDENCE,  THE ACCUSED  FILED A  DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.   THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.  CAN  THE  ACCUSED  BE  PROSECUTED  FOR  THE  SAME  OFFENSE AGAIN?

>     Yes.    There  was  no  double  jeopardy  because  the  court  has exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in  dismissing  the  case  even  before  the prosecution could finish presenting evidence
>     It denied the prosecution of its right to due process.  Because of this, the dismissal is null and void and cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy
 

THE   PROSECUTOR   FILED   AN   INFORMATION   AGAINST   X   FOR HOMICIDE.    BEFORE  X  COULD  BE  ARRAIGNED,  THE  PROSECUTOR WITHDREW  THE  INFORMATION  WITHOUT  NOTICE  TO  X.    THE PROSECUTOR  THEN  FILED  AN  INFORMATION  AGAINST  X  FOR MURDER.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, there was no arraignment yet under the first information
>     Therefore,  the  first  jeopardy  didn’t  attach.    The  withdrawal  or dismissal of the case before arraignment is not a bar to the filing of a new information for the same offense.
>     There is no double jeopardy where there is yet no arraignment
>     A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he pleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesn’t bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense
 

IF  THE  ACCUSED  FAILS  TO  OBJECT  TO  THE  MOTION  TO  DISMISS THE  CASE  FILED  BY  THE  PROSECUTION,  IS  HE  DEEMED  TO  HAVE CONSENTED  TO  THE  DISMISSAL?    CAN  HE  STILL  INVOKE  DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, silence doesn’t mean consent to the dismissal
>     If the accused fails to object or acquiesces to the dismissal of the case, he can still invoke double jeopardy, since the dismissal was
still without his express consent.
>     He is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy if he expressly consents to the dismissal
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  MURDER.    THE  PROSECUTION  MOVED  TO DISMISS  THE  CASE.    COUNSEL  FOR  X  WROTE  THE  WORDS  “NO OBJECTION”  AT  THE  BOTTOM  OF  THE  MOTION  TO  DISMISS  AND SIGNED IT.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY LATER ON?

>     No, X is deemed to have expressly consented to the dismissal of the case when his counsel wrote “no objection” at the bottom of the motion to dismiss
>     Since the case was dismissed with his express consent, X cannot invoke double jeopardy 
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  MURDER.    AFTER  THE  PROSECUTION PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE, X FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND  THAT  THE  PROSECUTION  FAILED  TO  PROVE  THAT  THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF   THE   COURT.      THE   COURT   DISMISSED   THE   CASE.      THE PROSECUTION APPEALED?  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, X cannot invoke double jeopardy
>     The dismissal was upon his own motion so it was with his express consent
>     Since the dismissal was with his express consent, he is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy
>     The only time when a dismissal, even with the express consent of the accused, will bar a double jeopardy is if it is based either on insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial
>     These  are  not  grounds  invoked  by  X  so  he  cannot  claim  double jeopardy
 

X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.  X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION.  BELIEVING IT HAD NO JURISDICTION, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE.  SINCE THE  COURT,  IN  FACT,  HAD  JURISDICTION  OVER  THE  CASE,  THE PROSECUTION FILED ANOTHER CASE IN THE SAME COURT.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No,  X  is  estopped  from  claiming  that  he  was  in  danger  of  being convicted during the first case, since he had himself earlier alleged that the court had no jurisdiction
 

X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.  THE COURT, BELIEVED IT HAD NO  JURISDICTION,  MOTU  PROPIO  DISMISSED  THE  CASE.    THE PROSECUTION  APPEALED,  CLAIMING  THAT  THE  COURT,  IN  FACT HAD JURISDICTION.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     Yes, when the trial court has jurisdiction but mistakenly dismisses the  complaint  or  information  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  it,  the dismissal wasn’t at the request of the accused, the dismissal is not
appealable because it will place the accused in double jeopardy
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  RAPE.    X  MOVED  TO  DISMISS  ON  THE GROUND  THAT  THE  COMPLAINT  WAS  INSUFFICIENT  BECAUSE  IT DID  NOT  ALLEGE  LEWD  DESIGNS.    THE  COURT  DISMISSED  THE CASE.    LATER,  ANOTHER  CASE  FOR  RAPE  WAS  FILED  AGAINST  X.  CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     No, X is estopped from claiming that he could have been convicted under the first complaint
>     He  himself  moved  for  the  dismissal  on  the  ground  that  the complaint was insufficient 
>     He  cannot  change  his  position  and  now  claim  that  he  was  in danger of being convicted under the complaint
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  MURDER,  ALONG  WITH  THREE  OTHER PEOPLE.    X  WAS  DISCHARGED  AS  A  STATE  WITNESS.    CAN  X  BE PROSECUTED AGAIN FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?

>     It depends
>     As  a  general  rule,  an  order  discharging  an  accused  as  state witness  amounts  to  an  acquittal,  and  he  is  barred  from  being prosecuted again for the same offense
>     However, if he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge, he can be prosecuted again
 

CAN   A   PERSON   ACCUSED   OF   ESTAFA   BE   CHARGED   WITH VIOLATION   OF   BP22   WITHOUT   PLACING   HIM   IN   DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     Yes.  Even if the same transaction is involved, the same act may violate two or more provisions of criminal law and the prosecution under one will not bar the prosecution under another
>     Where 2 different laws defines 2 crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses  arise  from  the  same  facts,  if  each  crime  involves  some important act which is not an essential element of the other
 

X INSTALLED A JUMPER CABLE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO REDUCE HIS ELECTRICITY BILL.  HE WAS PROSECUTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED      FOR      A      MUNICIPAL      ORDINANCE      AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED  INSTALLATION  OF  A  DEVICE.    CAN  HE  STILL  BE PROSECUTED FOR THEFT?

>     No, under the second type of jeopardy, when an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under one will bar a prosecution under the other
>     The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available as long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense  under  a  municipal  ordinance  are  the  same  acts  which
constitute  or  have  given  rise  to  the  offense  charged  under  the statute
 

WHAT  ARE  THE  EXCEPTIONS  TO  DOUBLE  JEOPARDY?    WHEN  CAN THE  ACCUSED  BE  CHARGED  WITH  A  SECOND  OFFENSE  WHICH NECESSARILY  INCLUDES  THE  OFFENSE  CHARGED  IN  THE  FORMER COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION?

>     The  conviction  of  the  accused  shall  not  be  a  bar  to  another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any  of the
following circumstances:
o      The  graver  offense  developed  due  to  supervening  facts arising  from  the  same  act  or  omission  constituting  the former charge
o      The  facts  constituting  the  graver  charge  became  known or were discovered only after a plea was  entered in the former complaint or information
o      The plea of guilty to a lesser  offense was  made without the consent of the prosecutor or offended party except if the offended party fails to appear at arraignment
 

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT?

>     Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which  changes the character  of the offense  and,  together  with  the  facts  existing  at  the  time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense.
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  FRUSTRATED  HOMICIDE.    THERE  WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS GOING TO DIE.  X WAS  ARRAIGNED.    BEFORE  TRIAL,  THE  VICTIM  DIED.    CAN  X  BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE?

>     It depends.  
>     If the death of the victim can be traced to the acts of X, and the victim didn’t contribute to his death with his negligence, X can be charged with homicide
>     This is a supervening fact
>     But if the act of X wasn’t the proximate cause of death, he cannot be charged with homicide
 

X  WAS  CHARGED  WITH  RECKLESS  IMPRUDENCE  RESULTING  TO HOMICIDE  AND  WAS  ACQUITTED.    THE  HEIRS  OF  THE  VICTIM APPEALED THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE JUDGMENT.  X CLAIMS THAT THE  APPEAL  WILL  PLACE  HIM  IN  DOUBLE  JEOPARDY.    IS  X CORRECT?

>     No, there was no second jeopardy.  What was elevated on appeal was the civil aspect of the case, not the criminal aspect.
>     The extinction of criminal liability whether by a prescription or by the bar of double jeopardy doesn’t carry with it the extinction of civil liability arising from the offense charged
 

X  IN  A  CRIMINAL  CASE  WAS  SENTENCED  AND  REQUIRED  TO  PAY CIVIL  LIABILITY.    CAN  THE  OFFENDED  PARTY  APPEAL  THE  CIVIL LIABILITY?

>     Yes, if there would be appeal for a criminal case, it must  pertain solely on the civil liability.
>     An  appeal  with  regard  the  criminal  aspect  would  violate  the accused’s right against double jeopardy.
>     The reason why the offended party can appeal the civil aspect is that double jeopardy only attaches to the criminal aspect and not the civil aspect.  The victim or offended party in the criminal case
is the State while in its civil aspect, the private offended party.
 

X WAS CHARGED  WITH  MURDER AND  WAS ACQUITTED.  CAN  THE PROSECUTION APPEAL THE ACQUITTAL?

>     No,  the  prosecution  cannot  appeal  the  acquittal,  since  it  would place the accused in double jeopardy.
>     A  judgment  of  acquittal  in  criminal  proceedings  is  final  and unappealable whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals
>     Even  if  the  decision  of  acquittal  was  erroneous,  the  prosecution cannot  still  appeal  the  decision  as  it  would  put  the  accused  in double jeopardy.

A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE WHETHER IT HAPPENS AT  THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL OR BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS

WHEN  CAN  THE  PROSECUTION  APPEAL  DESPITE  THE  DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE CASE?

>     As  a  general  rule,  the  dismissal  or  termination  of  the  case  after arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, an attempt
or  frustration  thereof,  or  one  which  necessarily  includes  or  is included in the previous offense.
>     However, the prosecution may appeal the order of dismissal in the following instances:

1.    If the dismissal of the first case was made upon motion or with the express consent of the defendant, unless the grounds  are  insufficiency  of  evidence  or  denial  of  the right to speedy trial
2.    If  the  dismissal  is  not  an  acquittal  or  based  upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case,
3.    And  the  question  to  be  passed  upon  by  the  appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect,  the  case  would  have  to  be  remanded  to  the court  of  origin  for  further  proceedings  to  determine  the guilt or innocence of the accused
 

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE APPEAL OF THE ACCUSED?

>     If  the  accused  appeals,  he  waives  his  right  against  double jeopardy
>     The case is thrown wide open for review and a penalty higher than that of the original conviction could be imposed upon him
 

WHAT  SHOULD  THE  ACCUSED  DO  IF  THE  COURT  DENIES  THE MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

>     He  should  plea  not  guilty  and  reiterate  his  defense  of  former jeopardy
>     In case of conviction, he should appeal from the judgment on the ground of double jeopardy

CAN  AN  ACCUSED  RAISE  THE  DEFENSE  OF  DOUBLE  JEOPARDY  IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS?

>     No,  jeopardy  doesn’t  attach.    Remember  the  requisites  for jeopardy.  Jeopardy only attaches in criminal proceedings.