Short answer. Generally no. A conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without your express consent, after you pleaded to a valid charge before a competent court, bars another prosecution for that offense, an attempt or frustration of it, or any offense necessarily included in or including it — subject to a few narrow exceptions.
What the law says
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.
Rule 117, Section 7 — Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. Read the full provision →
Several conditions have to line up before the bar applies
The protection is not automatic just because a case ended. It requires a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the accused had pleaded to the charge before the case concluded by conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused's express consent. Missing any of these elements can keep the bar from applying at all.
The bar covers more than the exact same charge
Once those conditions are met, the bar extends beyond a literal re-filing of the identical charge. It also covers any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, and any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the earlier case — closing off related charges that are really just variations on the same underlying conduct.
Three narrow exceptions where a graver charge can still proceed
Even a prior conviction does not always bar prosecution for a necessarily-included graver offense. The rule allows it where the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act, where the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the earlier case, or where a plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party (subject to its own exception under Rule 116).
Time already served counts toward a later conviction
Where one of these exceptions applies and the case proceeds, the rule protects the accused in one respect: if they already satisfy or serve in whole or in part the judgment from the first case, that is credited to them if they are later convicted of the graver offense. The accused is not made to serve the same time twice over the same underlying conduct.