相关规则
Philippines
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Section N. Non bis in idem
In its judgment in the Tujan case in 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court stated:
Article III of the Constitution provides:
“Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 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.”
In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit of an accused, the following requisites must have obtained in the first criminal action: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. 
Philippines, Supreme Court, Tujan case, Judgment, 1 April 1998.
[emphasis in original]
In its judgment in the Lumilan case in 2000, the Philippine Supreme Court stated:
Under Sec. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, double jeopardy lies when after the accused has pleaded to the first offense charged in a valid complaint or information and he is subsequently convicted or acquitted or the case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, he is prosecuted for a second offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof or any other offense, which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. 
Philippines, Supreme Court, Lumilan case, Judgment, 25 January 2000.
In its judgment in the Espinosa case in 2003, the Philippine Supreme Court stated:
A waiver of the constitutional right against double jeopardy must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent. Corollary to this rule, the alleged conditions attached to an arraignment must be unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened. Otherwise, the plea should be deemed to be simple and unconditional.
The right against double jeopardy is enshrined in Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution, which reads:
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 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.”
This constitutionally mandated right is procedurally buttressed by Section 17 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated:
“x x x (1) [A] first jeopardy must have 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 same or is a frustration thereof.
“And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.”
It has been the unwavering position of this Court that substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on the basis of mere suppositions and conjectures. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent. 
Philippines, Supreme Court, Espinosa case, Judgment, 15 August 2003.