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
1
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 accuseds 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 didnt 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 didnt 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
2
> 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, doesnt 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
wasnt 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 wasnt
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 doesnt 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 doesnt decide the merits of
the issue as to whether the accused is
or isnt guilty of the offense charged
WHEN IS A DISMISSAL OF THE CASE,
EVEN WITH EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE
3
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 accuseds 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 doesnt 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 reasonsprejudicial 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 wasnt
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
4
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 didnt
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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 wasnt 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
5
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 didnt
contribute to his death with his negligence,
X can be charged with homicide
> This is a supervening fact
> But if the act of X wasnt 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 doesnt carry with it the
extinction of civil liability arising from the
offense charged
6
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 accuseds 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
7
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 doesnt attach.
Remember the requisites for jeopardy.
Jeopardy only attaches in criminal
proceedings
.