1. Enumerate and explain the indispensable requisites before an accused may validly invoke the right to speedy trial which justifies the dismissal of his criminal case that amounts to double jeopardy

For double jeopardy to attach then, the following elements in the first criminal case must be present:

(a) The complaint or information or other formal charge was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;

(b) The court had jurisdiction;

(c) The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and

(d) He was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

Where the right of the accused to speedy trial has not been violated,

As a general rule, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal, made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion, will not place the accused in double jeopardy.

2. Explain the importance of the strict observance of by the courts of the right of an impartial trial on the part of the accused.

Due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.  The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. A judge should strive to be at all times "wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.

3. Explain the distinctions on the effect on the right of the accused to due process in a criminal proceeding for gross negligence and ordinary negligence committed by his lawyer.

As a general rule, negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the client, the exception is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.

The function of the rule that negligence or mistake of counsel in procedure is imputed to and binding upon the client, as any other procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to advance the ends of justice. When in the circumstances of each case the rule desert its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.

If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case. In a criminal proceeding, where certain evidence was not presented because of counsel's error or incompetence, the defendant in order to secure a new trial must satisfy the court that he has a good defense and that the acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence. What should guide judicial action is that a party be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. (jonh hilario vs. People, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008)