Jaylo vs Sandiganbayan CRIMPRO: RULE 119, Section 12 and 13

186/18
7 G.R. Nos. 111502- November 22, J. Sandoval- Carl I.
04 2001 Guttierez
Petitioners: Respondents:
REYNALDO H. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division)
JAYLO, WILLIAM
VALENZONA,
ANTONIO
HABALO and
EDGARDO
CASTRO
Recit Ready Summary

Petitioners Jaylo, Valenzona, Habalo and Castro [Jaylo et al] were former members of the Philippine
Constabulary-Integrated National Police. They were involved in a shoot-out incident at the Magallanes
Commercial Complex at Makati City which resulted to 3 deaths. The NBI and Criminal Investigation
Services [CIS] conducted an investigation but it submitted conflicting findings.

NBI concluded that Jaylo et al was a consequence of a Drug Buy-Bust operation with the Drug
Enforcement Agency [DEA] of the USA, particularly with agents Needham, Fendrich and Fernandez,
and in the course of effecting the arrest of the suspects, the suspects fired upon Jaylo et al who
retaliated only in self-defense. On the other hand, CIS concluded that petitioners shot the victims at
close range, without any chance to defend themselves. Because of this, then President Corazon Aquino
created a Presidential Fact-Finding Committee [The “Elma” Committee]. The Elma Committee
recommended the prosecution of Petitioners Jaylo et al.

The Office of the City Prosecutor filed with the Sandiganbayan cases for Murder against Jaylo et al.
Before the trial of the criminal cases, petitioners Jaylo et al filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan
praying that they be allowed to take oral depositions of the three (3) DEA agents before a
consular official of the Philippine Embassy stationed in the United States of America (USA). In
their motion, they argue that the importance of said evidence to the defense of the accused is so
encompassing that the failure to present the same would be tantamount to a serious violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused and may result to a serious miscarriage of justice since Needham,
Fendrich and Fernandez [DEA Agents] were present during the buy-bust operations.

The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, saying that other witnesses available in the Philippines to testify
on the same facts sought to be proved by the proposed deponents. Petitioner’s MR was also denied.
Hence, they filed with the SC contending that Sandiganbayan acted with Grave Abuse of Discretion.

The Issue is W/N the Sandiganbayan acted w/ Grave Abuse of Discretion in dismissing the motion of
Petitioners? The SC held NO.

The Sandiganbayan correctly denied petitioners’ motion. It properly ruled that no necessity existed for
the conditional examination of the proposed witnesses for the defense because other witnesses
appearing on record are available to testify on the same facts on which the proposed deponents would
testify.

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

1
have a vital role. 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.

Facts

1. Petitioners Reynaldo Jaylo, William Valenzona, Antonio Habalo and Edgardo Castro were
former members of the defunct Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PC-INP)
2. Petitioners Jaylo et al was involved in a shoot-out incident at the Magallanes Commercial
Complex, Makati City which resulted to the death of 2 Members of the Philippine Army and 1
Civilian Agent of the Criminal Investigation Services [CIS]
3. NBI and CIS were tasked to investigate the incident. Both Agencies submitted conflicting
findings.
a. Th e 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 of America (USA).
b. The DEA agents were identified as Phil Needham, Andrew Fendrich and Jack
Fernandez, all American citizens and residents of the USA.
c. 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.
d. Upon the other hand, the CIS concluded that petitioners shot the victims at close range,
without any chance to defend themselves.
4. Because of the conflicting facts, then President Corazon C. Aquino created a Presidential Fact-
Finding Committee headed by Magdangal Elma (the "Elma Committee") to investigate the
incident.
a. After hearing the testimonies of 44 witnesses, the Elma Committee recommended the
prosecution of four (4) participants in the drug buy-bust operation.
5. The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed with the Sandiganbayan Informations for murder
against the petitioners Jaylo et al
6. Before the trial of the criminal cases, petitioners Jaylo et al filed a motion with the
Sandiganbayan praying that they be allowed to take oral depositions of the DEA agents
before a consular official of the Philippine Embassy stationed in the United States of
America (USA).
a. In Jaylo et al’s motion, they argue that the importance of said evidence to the defense
of the accused is so encompassing that the failure to present the same would be
tantamount to a serious violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and may
result to a serious miscarriage of justice.
b. Mr. Fendrich was the head of DEA and he was the one who coordinated and planned
with one of the accused, Reynaldo Jaylo, to entrap the sellers of said prohibited drugs
c. Mr. Phil Needham, on the other hand, is a major player in the said drug buy-bust
operation. He acted as the poseur-buyer and negotiated with the agent of the
deceased, Ms. Estrella Arrastia
d. Mr. Jake Fernandez was actually at the Magallanes Commercial Center to serve us a
back-up security for Needham in case any untoward incident occurs.
7. Sandiganbayan denied the motion. It argues that there are other witnesses available in the
Philippines to testify on the same facts sought to be proved by the proposed deponents.
Petitioners Jaylo et al filed an MR but it was still denied. Hence, the petition to the SC arguing
that Sandiganbayan committed Grave Abuse of Discretion.
Procedural History
1. Jaylo et al were charged with Murder at the Sandiganbayan.

2
 2. Jaylo et al filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan praying that they be allowed to take oral
depositions of the DEA agents before a consular official of the Philippine Embassy stationed in
the United States of America (USA).
3. Sandiganbayan denied the Motion stating that there are other witnesses available in the
Philippines to testify on the same facts sought to be proved by the proposed deponents.
4. Jaylo et al Moved for reconsideration but was still denied by the Sandiganbayan.
5. Jaylo et al appealed to the SC saying that there was Grave abuse of discretion
Point/s of Contention
Jaylo et al: Petitioners contend Under Section 13, the application for oral deposition in a criminal case
shall be granted only "(i)f the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is
necessary". Thus, the determination of whether or not an oral deposition of a defense witness is
necessary is addressed to the sound discretion of the court where the application was made.
Petitioners assert that such discretion was gravely abused by the Sandiganbayan.

Issues Ruling
1. W/N 1. NO
Sandiganbay
an acted with
Grave Abuse
of Discretion
in Dismissing
the Motion?
Rationale

The Sandiganbayan correctly denied petitioners’ motion. It properly ruled that no necessity existed for
the conditional examination of the 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.

The reasons for denying the motion were "not disputed by the accused (now petitioners); on the
contrary, they expressly confirmed it when they ‘conceded that for the most part, deponents’ testimony
are 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.

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. 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.

3
Disposition
Petition is Dismissed.
Separate Opinions
NA