We prisoner was awested for Kéling tne victim on me occasion of robben. He Nad ‘een detained and inietogdted almost Continuousiy for five days, 4 nd avail. re consisrentiy maintained! his Miocene. Mere was _no evidence to ink nin fo me ctime . ODiowsy, Smeming drastic had fo ve done A confession was avsolutely necessan) so tne investigating offices began fy maul Gnd fortune me accused pnysically- sti), me prsonef insisted of his innocence. Iivestigating offices continued tm nehie Me prisonel by Continviously bearing him, covered Nis face wim a-eag and pushed his face into atpiler vow! fll of human waste. The pasonet > Collld not taker onymore and admitted what me investigating offices wanted him tp admit and signed me confession iney prepared. te aso posed for pichwres as clirected by Me _cificets , Pamorning It tp be _are- enactment. Issue: whemer Of Nol Me acalsed was Informed of nis consritvtional nights + remain sent and ‘> Counsel, And mal any siatemem ne might) make could ne used agains! him- RULING = No, accused was not informed of nis conshhational rafts , rence , alleged confession is inadnntssible. Svch_a tong question followed by 4 monosyllabic answer does Nor canisty ‘tne requirements OF Me law mat me accued was infolmed of his rignis. Instead , mem Showlig ve several sto! and Cleat questions and even) _ngnl explained if simple words ind dialect Known tothe pero under investigation. me accused was trom Samat and there {sno showing that ne understands tagalog. Moreover, at me pme of Nis atest, cused was ngi permitted tp contad nis lawyel. His Scafement does noreven contaid any waiver of right te Counsel and yel Auring imeshgaon he was not assisted by Ove. Ame skpposed re-enactment, again, accused was nol asic with course] of Ms Choi. These constinmke gros violation of his constitutional rights.