A PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION HAS THE FOLLOWING

RIGHTS

Section 12(1): the right to be informed of his right to remain silent, his right
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
said person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one.
Section 12(2): No torture, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Section 12(3): Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Section12(14): The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of
victims or similar practices and their families.

Note: Only the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel can be
waived, and in case they are waived, the waiver must be in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
-
People v. Jose which was decided in 1971, the rights of the accused only
began upon arraignment. The 1973 rule said that the rights began the
moment a person had become the focus of investigation and had been taken
into police custody.

Galman v. Pamaran the supreme court ruled that the protection covered
persons not yet in custody but already under investigation.

People v. Rodolfo Dela Cruz(Sept. 17,1997) the right begins to operate

only when the person is taken into custody and to whom the police would
then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating
statements.

An accused must be informed of the rights set out in par. 1 of Sec. 12, Art 3
of the Constitution upon being held as a suspect and made to undergo
custodial investigation by the police authorities.
Failure of the police to inform appellant of his rights under the constitution
especially his right to counsel are all fatal to admissibility of the extrajudicial
confession supposedly executed by appellant. Necessarily, even while there
is evidence of the corpus delicti in this case, apellant's conviction must be set
aside for this exrajudicial