REYNALDO H. JAYLO, WILLIAM VALENZONA, ANTONIO HABALO and EDGARDO CASTRO, petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), respondent.

FACTS: Petitioners Reynaldo Jaylo, William Valenzona, Antonio Habalo and Edgardo Castro were former members of the defunct Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PC-INP), assigned at the Western Police District (WPD), Manila, but detailed with the NBI. On July 10, 1990, petitioners figured in a shoot-out incident at the Magallanes Commercial Complex, Makati City, which resulted in the death of Colonel Rolando de Guzman, Major Franco Calanog (both members of the Philippine Army) and Avelino Manguerra (reportedly a civilian agent of the Criminal Investigation Services [CIS]). The NBI and CIS were then tasked to investigate the incident. Both agencies submitted conflicting findings. The NBI reported that the shooting incident was a consequence of the NBI-WPD Joint Heroin Drug Buy-Bust Operation headed by petitioner Reynaldo Jaylo, in close coordination with the agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) of the United States. The DEA agents were identified as Phil Needham, Andrew Fendrich and Jack Fernandez, all American citizens and residents of the USA. The NBI further reported that in the course of effecting the arrest of the suspects, the latter fired upon petitioners who retaliated in self-defense. Upon the other hand, the CIS concluded that petitioners shot the victims at close range, without any chance to defend themselves. Due to the conflicting versions of the two agencies, then President Corazon C. Aquino created a Presidential Fact-Finding Committee headed by Magdangal Elma (the "Elma Committee") to investigate the incident. After hearing the testimonies of 44 witnesses, the Elma Committee recommended the prosecution of four (4) participants in the drug buy-bust operation. Consequently, on September 12, 1992, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed with the Sandiganbayan 3 Amended Informations for murder against the petitioners. Before the trial of the criminal cases, or on Feb 16, 1993, petitioners filed a motion praying that they be allowed to take oral depositions of the 3 DEA agents before a consular official of the Phil. Embassy stationed in the USA. The motion is basically premised on the ff. grounds: (a) Accused is entitled under the Constitution to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf; (b) Sec. 4, Rule 119 of the 1988 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure recognizes the right of the accused, upon motion w/ notice, to have witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf; (c) Due to the limitations of Rule 119, the Sandiganbayan should liberally allow the utilization of the pertinent provisions of Rule 24 on Depositions and Discovery of the Revised Rules of Court to secure the testimony of probable witnesses who are willing to testify outside the Philippines. (d) The taking of depositions before the Philippine consulate abroad does not raise any extraterritorial problems, particularly on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Ruling that there are other witnesses available in the Philippines to testify on the same facts sought to be proved by the proposed deponents, the Sandiganbayan) denied the motion:

o There being no showing that the proposed deponents are the only witnesses upon the facts sought to be proved. On the contrary, in addition to the accused, other witnesses are available on the same facts. There is also no showing that the alleged videotapes and memoranda in the possession of the US Drug Enforcement Administration chronicling the events prior to and during the shooting incident cannot be made available except through the proposed deponents. Hence, no necessity appears for the conditional examination of defense witnesses under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 119, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, assuming that as argued extensively by the accused, the conditional examination provided in those sections, supplemented by pertinent provisions of Rule 24, Revised Rules of Court, may be validly held outside the Philippines. ISSUES: whether or not the Sandiganbayan exercised grave abuse of discretion in ruling that an oral deposition of a defense witness in this case is not necessary HELD: NO. The Sandiganbayan did not act with grave abuse of discretion. It is manifest that the court was not convinced that the examination of those witnesses is necessary. In fact, it was aware that the proposed deponents testimonies would be merely corroborative in nature. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied petitioners motion. It properly ruled that no necessity existed for the conditional examination of the 3 proposed witnesses for the defense because (a) other witnesses appearing on record are available to testify on the same facts on which the proposed deponents would testify; and that (b) petitioners failed to show that the video tapes recording the events prior to and during the shooting incident could not be produced except through the same deponents. We have carefully observed the finding of the Sandiganbayan specified in its assailed Resolution of Aug 10, 1993 that the reasons for denying the motion were "not disputed by the petitioners; on the contrary, they expressly confirmed it when they conceded that for the most part, deponents testimony are corroborative in nature. It is clear that, although the proposed deponents testimonies are admittedly corroborative in nature, what prompted petitioners to file the motion for oral deposition was their seeming apprehension that the Sandiganbayan might not consider their very own testimonies credible. Petitioners posture is certainly speculative and cannot be a valid ground for seeking an oral deposition. In fact, such apprehension contravenes the legal presumption that a trial judge can fairly weigh and appraise the evidence submitted by the respective parties. Moreover, petitioners bare allegation that the DEA American agents cannot come to the Philippines to testify for security reasons, is not a compelling justification to take their deposition in the US. The taking of deposition in criminal cases may be allowed only in exceptional situation in order to prevent a failure of justice. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the DEA agents could not attend the trial. It is quite unusual and preposterous that the said agents who, by the nature of their profession, are used to risking their lives to apprehend and prosecute drug traffickers, suddenly refused to testify in a case wherein they have a vital role. We thus hold that in issuing the assailed Resolutions, Petitioners cannot likewise feign denial of due process since they admitted that they have other witnesses to testify on the same facts sought to be testified to by the proposed deponents.