The PNP's costly failure to retrieve Mendoza's M-16

Of the many questions the August 23 probe sought to answer, at least one continues to stump the government: Why did a dismissed policeman still have his service firearm more than three months after he was fired? “We asked Gen. (Rodolfo) Magtibay, and he didn’t have an explanation," said Roan Libarios, a member of the semi-government Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC). Magtibay is the former superior of ex-policeman Rolando Mendoza at the Manila Police District (MPD). Dismayed over delays in his pending case at the Ombudsman, Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus and was killed after opening fire on his hostages, leaving eight Hong Kong tourists dead. The IIRC did not pursue the unreturned firearm issue. The committee’s report was submitted to President Aquino last Friday and released to the public on Monday without any categorical answers to that question. It’s a crucial point. If by August 23 Mendoza no longer had his M-16 – the automatic weapon probers confirmed was used to kill the eight hostages – he might have been forced to use his .45-caliber pistol, a personal firearm and a less efficient weapon for mass killing. At a Senate hearing on the tragedy last August 26, Magtibay said, “The .45-caliber pistol was a loose firearm. But the M-16 was his firearm issued to him (by the PNP) in 1994." If Philippine National Police policy was followed, Mendoza should not have had his M-16 on that fateful day and should have already turned it in last July at the latest, or three months after he was dismissed from the service in April 2010. But according to a GMANews.TV investigation, the PNP failed to enforce any of its own firearms return rules in Mendoza’s case. The PNP also refuses to say how many dismissed policemen still retain their service firearms and may pose a threat to the public. No dismissal order, no demand letter Under the general procedures for the PNP’s Oplan Bawi, dismissed policemen are supposed to return their service firearms within 15 days upon receipt of a first demand letter sent by the PNP’s Logistics Support Service (LSS). According to PNP officers familiar with the rules, the first demand letter is sent only after the LSS is furnished the policeman’s dismissal order by his mother unit, in Mendoza’s case the MPD. “Only the mother units can authorize the demand letter because it is the office that issues firearms to officers in the first place," said a PNP official while holding a copy of the rules. But the mother unit can only issue the demand letter once it has a copy of the policeman’s dismissal order provided by the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), which in turn receives its copy from PNP Headquarters. The dismissed policeman who refuses to turn over his firearm(s) is given two more demand letters. If he still doesn’t comply, the PNP must file a criminal case against him and issue a warrant of arrest. All this must occur within three months after the dismissal order is received by the policeman’s mother unit. Since Mendoza still had his M-16, he was apparently in violation of the PNP’s firearms return policy. “Dapat sinampahan na ng kaso (A case should have been filed)," said PNP spokesman Senior Superintendent Agrimero Cruz. But did the PNP actually file a case or otherwise attempt to retrieve Mendoza’s M-16? “That I need to research," said Cruz. GMANews.TV visited several PNP offices, including the Camp Crame headquarters and Mendoza’s mother unit, the MPD. Due to a gag order on the Mendoza case, no one who had access to his files agreed to speak on the record. According to police sources, Mendoza voluntarily returned his short service firearms after his "relief" last April, accompanied by a “turn-in slip," which meant that he was turning over those firearms but only temporarily "for safekeeping." However, the M-16 was never returned. According to the same sources, Mendoza was never sent any demand letters because his dismissal order was never transmitted down the line from PNP headquarters to the NCRPO to the MPD and on to the LSS, which should have issued the demand letters and ultimately, the criminal malversation charges against Mendoza for keeping government property. A warrant should have been issued for Mendoza’s arrest once the deadline expired last July for the return of his M-16. Instead, the dismissed cop was allowed to walk the streets with an illegal firearm, eventually hitching a ride on a tourist bus on August 23. – with a report by Mark Merueñas, GMANews.TV