‘Club 88 cops’ suspended

(Photo Courtesy of Prosixrpiopnp Rpio Facebook)

By Jennifer P. Rendon

A 59-day suspension was meted against three policemen who went on drinking binge at a nightclub in Iloilo City in 2019.

Police Brigadier General Rene Pamuspusan, Western Visayas police chief, said he concurred with the recommendation of the summary hearing officer to suspend Police Chief Master Sergeant Jose Dingal, Senior Master Sergeant Fernil Mark Mallorca, and Staff Sergeant Ralph Mabuque.

Pamuspusan said it didn’t take long for him to approve the recommendation.

Since the charge was deemed as light offense, the sanction was only 59 days of suspension.

Police Lieutenant Colonel Pablito Asmod, Jr., chief of the Regional Investigation and Detective Management Division (RIDMD), filed an administrative case for less grave neglect of duty against the three cops on July 15, 2019.

Pamupusan said three will serve their suspension immediately if they do not file any appeal.

Along with serving their suspension, they will be barred from receiving their salaries and corresponding benefits.

Dingal, Mallorca, and Mabuque were all assigned at the Regional Headquarters Support Unit 6 (RHSU-6) based in Police Regional Office 6 (PRO-6) headquarters at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City when the infraction happened.

Based on the complaint, a certain “Madam I” of Club 88 Disco Pub & Restaurant, a nightclub along J.M. Basa St., City Proper, Iloilo City, revealed that three persons entered the KTV Bar at around 11:45 p.m. of June 25, 2019.

The three requested and drinks and asked “ladies” to join them in their table.

At around 12:30 a.m. of June 26, the trio were given their bill amounting to P5,100 but one of them contested it and argued with the waiter

Lt. Col. Jonathan Pablito, then Iloilo City Police Station 1 chief, said they received a call from the club asking for assistance.

“When we arrived, there was no commotion. Apparently, the bar management asked for assistance because these three customers refused to pay the bill,” he said.

The two companions of the complaining cop agreed to settle their bill.

“Apparently, kulang ‘yung bayad at ‘yung Isa sa kanila ay nagtaas ng boses. The two were trying to pacify. They eventually paid their bill even before our policemen arrived,” he said.

Club 88 management later claimed that the matter was already settled.

At that time, Pablito said they did not know that three customers involved were police officers.

Hours after the incident, a Club 88 waiter went to the police station to indicated in the blotter that the three customers insulted and threatened him.

The blotter was about oral defamation and threat. But when the waiter was informed that he needs to execute a judicial affidavit, he sought anonymity in the blotter.

When he was told that it was impossible, he allegedly declined to pursue the case.

The three officers themselves let it slip that they were cops.

“Sila-sila din ang nag-usap hanggang nakarating na sa iba. Kasi kung sa Club 88 lang, wala kang makukuha na information,” Pablito said.

Under National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Memorandum Circular 2016-002, neglect of duty or nonfeasance is defined as “xxx the omission or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform an act or duty, which it was the peace officer’s legal obligation to perform; implies a duty as well as its breach and the fact can never be found in absence of duty xxx”.

The Memorandum Circular also provides that Less Grave Neglect of Duty is “xxx fail to comply with any lawful order or instruction of superior officer or Chief of Police xxx”.

On Jan 9, 2019, Police General Oscar David Albayalde, the former PNP Chief, reminded all PNP personnel that they are prohibited from drinking in karaoke bars, nightclubs, pubs and other public places.

In the signed decision, it was stated that the respondents obviously failed to comply with the reminders of the Chief PNP and was found that the respondents were liable for Less Grave Neglect of Duty for failure to comply lawful order or instruction from the superior.

The decision was already served to the respondents on January 13, 2019.