Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
The day before Rico Puno resigned as Department of Interior and Local Governments undersecretary, I was able to interview Oliver Tanseco – the police officer who had accompanied Puno to the residential condo of the late DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo.
Robredo had introduced me personally to Police Superintendent Tanseco in April 2011 as one of the channels through which to communicate to his office. I sensed that Tanseco had Robredo’s trust.
Why is it important to verify the truth surrounding the condo visit of armed cops on the Sunday morning of August 19?
I can think of three reasons why – despite what Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said about the media fussing over nothing.
First, since I talked to Tanseco last Monday, at least three other conflicting versions of the same event have been told the public. I want to know why.
Second, sometimes it’s small incidents like these that expose much bigger things. Remember it was a break-in which uncovered the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of a sitting US President. Before anyone jumps on that last statement, I am not implying anything else by saying it.
Finally third, I found the unannounced and unauthorized visit to the residence of a missing top government official highly shocking. Recall that at that time, the public was riveted on finding Robredo alive, perhaps drifting on a piece of wreckage or swept to a remote island. Unknown to us all, here was Robredo’s underling showing up with not just one or two policemen but a sizable number of armed cops at the private residence of the missing Robredo that Sunday August 19. Offhand, it’s highly unusual for government officials to be on O.B. (official business) on a Sunday.
I’m wondering what those documents inside Robredo’s condo contained. One media report said De Lima later turned them over to Robredo’s widow. Is this true?
Broadcast network ABS-CBN had called the incident an attempted raid. To me it did look like an aborted police raid.
And if the idea all along was really to secure the condo and anyone inside from harm, my hubby Alan pointed out to me that the least the group could have done was leave someone behind to guard the premises. Isn’t it strange no one was left behind to guard the door of the condo?
And so I phoned Tanseco last Monday Sept 10 since he was a participant and eyewitness. But I did not write the Tanseco interview right away because I wanted to verify some things he had said. Instead, I uploaded President Benigno Aquino’s lengthy press briefing in Vladivostok.
The next day Tuesday, I had no time to write the piece again because I had to file a story on the aborted arms deal involving Puno for South China Morning Post (HK).
When Puno abruptly resigned Tuesday afternoon, I thought Tanseco’s story had been overtaken by events.
I was wrong. Portions of Puno’s version of the August 19 events contradicted those of Tanseco.
I phoned Tanseco and told him that Puno had resigned and issued a time-line which said that on August 19 at:
0930 H (9:30 am) Informed by Superintendent Tanseco that there were documents inside the residence/condominium of the Secretary.
1000 H (10:00 am) Led team to secure Secretary Robredo’s condominium unit; stayed in condominium lobby; instructed team to sign condominium log book to document our presence; left condominium after about 20 minutes. [Note: The highlighting in red is mine.]
I reminded Tanseco that he had told me that:
ONE: He did not know whether or not there were documents in Robredo’s residential condo. I had earlier asked him whether they had gone there precisely to look for documents. I reminded Tanseco that he had replied – “Wala, I was not there to look for documents.”
TWO: Tanseco had told me that the trip to Robredo’s condo was on Puno’s order.
THREE: Tanseco had gone up to the floor where the condo was located, leaving Puno and the cops on the ground floor lobby. However, when Tanseco opened the door of the condo unit, he found Puno and Senior Superintendent Joel Pagdilao waiting just outside the door.
Puno’s time-line stated that he “stayed in condominium lobby”. He also told veteran GMA News broadcaster that he had stayed in the ground floor lobby all throughout the episode.
I asked Tanseco which I should believe – Puno’s version or his version. I asked him if it was true he was the one who told Puno that there were documents inside Robredo’s condo.
Tanseco told me that before replying, he first wanted to read Puno’s statement “para naman safe ako.”
I repeated my question.
Tanseco replied: “Yung sinabi ko dati.”
“Ano yung sinabi mo dati?” I asked him.
He told me to call him back two hours later. He said he was late for a class he was teaching at the Public Safety College.
Since that early evening of Tuesday, Tanseco has chosen not to reply either to my text messages or my calls. I am greatly intrigued by what he had said – “Para safe naman ako.”
To this day I wonder why a police officer with a gun told me he needed to be safe – from whom?
Who is to be believed? Tanseco or President Benigno Aquino’s BFF – Best Friend Forever?
I don’t know at this point.
But I’d like to point out that Tanseco is not your run of the mill police officer. This is why I held off writing this, in order to check what he told me about his background.
Tanseco has a master’s degree in the College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines. He is about to finish a doctorate degree at the UP Institute of Mass Communications. Ironically, one of the areas he said he wanted to specialize in is “Crisis Communications.” I jokingly told him that he could turn his ongoing experience into a thesis.
I counter-checked with the IMC what he had said about himself. Nini Burlad of the IMC doctoral program office confirmed to me that Tanseco is currently studying there. In fact, Nini said:
Matatapos na nga siya. He’s graduating this sem. He was asked to present his oral dissertation within this month. After that, magiging Dr. Tanseco na siya.
Tanseco had told me that this incident has placed his 17 years in the PNP on the line.
Since I interviewed Tanseco, I have noticed that there have appeared three other versions on the condo visit: that of Puno, Philippine Star columnist Billy Esposo; and Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Conrado de Quiros.
Recall that in Puno’s version, it was Tanseco who told him about the documents in Robredo’s condo and Puno himself never went upstairs.
In Billy Esposo’s version, it was PNP Chief Nicanor Bartolome who “relayed” to Puno further instructions to also secure papers in the Robredo condo. Here is a portion from his column entitled “Why Rico Puno was targeted from Day 1 [the highlighting in red is mine]:
Last Tuesday, I was given a full briefing on the Rico Puno controversy the alleged “raid” and “break in”
1.There was no raid or break in at the Robredo condo. Puno went there consistent with orders that he had received from President Benigno S. Aquino III (P-Noy) to secure the sensitive papers of the late Jesse Robredo. Puno went to the condo after Chief PNP (Philippine National Police) Nicanor Bartolome relayed to Puno further instructions to also secure papers in the Robredo condo. Clearly, Puno was acting like a good soldier.
For his part, Conrado de Quiros implied that Tanseco was in fact lying when he said he had talked to Robredo’s maid. De Quiros said “there was no maid” in the first place. De Quiros also said “Puno has been found guilty without having been tried.”
Here is the pertinent portion of De Quiros’ piece entitled “Kafkaesque” [the highlighting in red is mine]:
What in fact happened?
After Robredo’s plane crashed, P-Noy ordered Puno to secure all of Robredo’s documents as they were extremely sensitive, and gambling lords in particular would be eager to get their hands on them. Puno complied. Going by the book, he brought along a group led by Supt. Oliver Tanseco. Tanseco is Robredo’s deputy chief of internal security and one of his trusted aides. They went to Jesse’s office, took pictures, and sealed it. Puno then reported it to the President.
That same night, Tanseco remembered that there were other documents in Robredo’s condo unit and called up Puno to propose that they secure it too. That call was witnessed by officials who, for reasons of their own, kept mum about it while Puno was being pilloried for stepping out of bounds but who now confess to it. The following day, Puno and Tanseco went over to Robredo’s house. They were never denied entry by the maid simply because there was no maid. In fact, there was no one inside. Puno himself remained in the lobby while his team took pictures of the unit from the outside. They never entered the unit. All in all, they spent 20 minutes there and left.
If that is the case, who opened Robredo’s door to allow Tanseco to enter? A non-maid?
Also, notice that in this version, it was Tanseco who had phoned Puno “witnessed by officials…” It was not President Aquino phoning Puno in the presence of officials, including Tanseco.
I’m not saying which version should be believed. All I’d like to do is for everyone to compare these two versions with Tanseco’s answers below. The questions are those which I asked him but are not in the order that I asked him:
Raissa Robles: Can you give me an account of what took place on August 18 that led to your condo visit on August 19?
Tanseco: We met around 10 or 11 pm of Saturday August 18. Doon mismo sa chief PNP (official residence). Puno was there, (Undersecretary Austere) Panadero, Joanne de la Cruz (Robredo’s personal staff), Benjie Nadea, may isa pa.
RR: Puno got a call from the president and gave the order to Usec Puno?
Tanseco: Yes. In front of (PNP Chief Nicanor) Bartolome, in front of everyone.
RR: Did you hear what the President told Puno?
Tanseco: I was 8 feet away (from Puno). So I didn’t hear. My name was mentioned (by Puno) to whoever was on the other side of the phone…the order was to secure documents. That’s what we are trained. We do follow orders even if I have to sacrifice something. That’s what my job is for. We are trained. That’s our job. Protecting our documents.
RR: The following day, after you secured Robredo’s office at Gold condominium, you went to his residential condo?
Tanseco: Yes, after ng office. Kasama na namin ang Quezon City police. Hindi sila pumasok sa condo. Ako lang po together with the security guard of the building.
RR: Where was Usec Puno when you were inside the condo?
Tanseco: Puno was on the ground floor. He (Puno) was outside the door (of the condo) by the time I went out, together with Sr Supt (Joel) Pagdilao.
RR: On what floor is Robredo’s condo?
Tanseco: I’d rather not say for security reasons.
RR: Did the maid know you?
Tanseco: Maid doesn’t know me.
RR: Was that the first time you went to his condo?
Tanseco: No, not the first time.
RR: Why did you go inside the condo?
Tanseco: The reason why I’m there was to brief the katulong – na walang papapasukin. Walang repair ng cable, TV, magdeliver the tubig.
RR: Did you go there in order to look for documents?
Tanseco:Wala. Not to look for documents.
RR: What happened with the katulong?
Tanseco: She was hesitant. I called up Atty Nina (Rances), (Robredo’s) executive assistant. She (Nina) said you cannot secure the condo, walang search warrant. I told Nina no one is going inside. Ako lang. Akala ko kasi alam na nila. Nagmiting na (the night before). Instructions were given. Yung assumption ko, nakapagcoordinate with the family. since no instruction was given, I immediately stepped out of the room.
That’s why I double-checked . I found out walang clearance kay Atty Leni (Robredo). That’s why I stepped out of the room. I did not touch any thing.
RR: Why did you not call Atty Leni?
Tanseco: I did not have the number of Ma’am Leny. Kay Secretary Robredo, work is work. Family is family.
RR: Who suggested you go over to the condo?
Tanseco: I’m trying to recall. [A brief pause.] It’s Usec Puno.
RR: Do you report to Secretary Robredo or Usec Puno?
Tanseco: Isa boss ko, si chief PNP. I’m assigned to the secretary. I answer to the (DILG) secretary as the senior police assistant.
RR: Sino and direct boss mo?
Tanseco: Si Sr Supt Francisco Penaflor at si Secretary Robredo. My official designation is deputy senior police assistant to the secretary. The order to secure was lawful. There were no unlawful orders to burn anything. It’s a lawful order. It’s a needed protocol at that time. I was there to carry out the interests of the secretary. Remember, hindi pa naman alam kung anong nangyari sa secretary.
CuriousMiron says
First post after so many readings from you guys hehe….
Saw this article
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=849201&publicationSubCategoryId=86
Just wondering, bakit di niyo nalang interviewhin si Puno sa halip na mag-hypothesize? I think willing naman sya magpainterview, Kita niyo naman nag-attend naman sya ng senate hearing. You can also fill out the gaps….
Johnny Lin says
Very respectful ang naginterview sa kanya.
Ito dapat itanong sa kanya:
1. Bakit hindi ka humingi ng permiso kay Mrs Robredo bago ka pumunta sa condo?
2. Bakit hindi ka nagpaalam sa presidente na pupunta ka sa condo ganun sinabi mo ang utos sa iyo ng presidente hindi kasama tirahan ni Robredo.
3. Sino ang mataas na katunkulan sa DILG ikaw o si Tanseco pagkatapos mawala ni Jesse at binigyan ka ng utos ng presidente ikaw ang mamahala sa paglikom ng papeles.
4. Ibig sabihin ba ng utos sayo ng presidente susunod ka kay Tanseco o susunod siya sa iyo. May kasunod na tanong ito, depende sa sagot.
Baka naman yung naginterview dati na, sa lagay naman parati ang prinsipyo
He he he
Johnny Lin says
Inimbita siya ng ABS CBN para sa interview ni Anthony Taberna, ayaw pumayag
Ganun ba ang willing magpainterview
Bakit kaya naduduwag sa ABS CBN
He he he
andrew lim says
NAGKASUNDO NA KAMI NI MIRIAM PERO HINDI SI MANONG JOHNNY
Nagkasundo na kami ni Miriam at pinatawad ko na siya sa panandaliang pag-layas ng kanyang pag-iisip noong Corona impeachment trial. Isinusulong na namin ang RH bill.(joke)
Tapos na ba kayo sa definition ng “condo at unit?” O sa “kasambahay”? :)
Next week nag hahanda rin ako sa ika-40 annibersaryo ng Martial Law- gusto ko ipa-alala sa taong bayan ang nangyari sa ilalim ng pamumuno ni Manong Johnny sa Dept of National Defense.
Hindi ko talaga maintindihan kung bakit napakaingat ni Manong Johnny ngayon sa sperm (anti-RH) samantalang wala siyang pakialam kung ano mangyari doon sa mga taong pinakulong nya. (nag-thank you lang ako sa kanya noong impeachment. never ako naging fan ni Manong Johnny.)
At kahit pro-RH si Bongbong, gusto ko ring ipa-alala sa mga ipinanganak pagkatapos ng EDSA na hindi pa bayad ng husto ang mga Marcos. Kahit si Binay pa ang manalo, hindi pa rin pwede ilibing si Ferdinand sa Libingan ng mga Bayani.
tristanism says
*Reposting without the link
“Espinelli offered to sell Galil assault rifles to the PNP at a price of around P89,000 each complete with seven magazines and 360 rounds of ammunition. However, the price was questioned amid information from the Internet that the weapon could be purchase at an average of US$1,000 to $1,200 each. However, officials explained that the US$1,000-$1,200 price does not include the shipping fee, ammunition and additional magazines.”
from = journal.com.ph/index.php/news/top-stories/37890-pnp-hits-back
Back then, we would have checked all the prices, taxes, papers, et cetera.
I was waiting for an accountant to come up with the PROPER CALCULATION and say, “O, that is indeed overpriced because according to my calculation based on current Philippine standard or something or another, the price should only be ______.”
I’m trying my best to be the counterworm (kontrabulate) here because this much malice can’t be good for our collective blood pressure.
pelang says
@tristanism also i’d like to add that upon conversion from pesos to dollars you pay more than the official exchange rate because the bank calculates their loses already. try buying dollars in pesos, you will find out that instead of paying say 48 pesos in exchange rate, you’ll end up paying 54 pesos for 1 $.
tristanism says
“Espinelli offered to sell Galil assault rifles to the PNP at a price of around P89,000 each complete with seven magazines and 360 rounds of ammunition. However, the price was questioned amid information from the Internet that the weapon could be purchase at an average of US$1,000 to $1,200 each. However, officials explained that the US$1,000-$1,200 price does not include the shipping fee, ammunition and additional magazines.”
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/top-stories/37890-pnp-hits-back
Back then, we would have checked all the prices, taxes, papers, et cetera.
I was waiting for an accountant to come up with the PROPER CALCULATION and say, “O, that is indeed overpriced because according to my calculation based on current Philippine standard or something or another, the price should only be ______.”
I’m trying my best to be the counterworm (kontrabulate) here because this much malice can’t be good for our collective blood pressure.
Martial Bonifacio says
Ang dami pa palang possible corruption cases na dapat bantayan sa phl. Besides sa pagbili ng baril, nakaabot na dito ang news about Visayan Forum Foundation Inc. (VFFI) alleged fund misuse.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/50156/us-sues-top-ngo-execs
Ang nakakalungkot pa is that some news agency ay pinalalabas na ito ay USAID vs PHL, where in fact its a case of filipino against another filipino.
Its between a alleged filipino whistleblower + the findings of NBI antifraud chief Rachel Marfil-Angeles against VFFI president Ma. Cecilia Flores-Oebanda.
raissa says
Interaksyon picked up the story :
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/43156/journalist-points-out-contradictions-in-punos-visit-to-robredo-condo
Leona says
When Mr. Puno was allegedly over the cell phone talking with the president…while his group includ Supt. Tanseco was there …8 feet away, was it really the president on the other line? Since nobody except Mr. Puno was talking or listening on that cell phone, it could also be that there was no president on the other line…parang “to make believe” lang…
…only the president can confirm “such call” to Mr. Puno on that day and exact time on this specific point of that phone call.
parengtony says
Esposo, in his Philstar column today ( a follow-up column on the Puno controversy relative to the Senate hearing conducted by Mirriam) totally ignored the very highly significant and glaring discrepancies between the and Puno and Tanseco versions laid bare by Ms. Raissa.
To me this is a clear indication of propaganda on the part of Esposo not to mention the obvious intellectual dishonesty. Nakakabawas respeto, sa totoo lang.
Moreover, because of the great efforts (as in moving heaven and earth) to put a less damaging spin to this controversy, I am more convinced that what is really involved here is something of gargantuan proportions, spectacular scope, and far-reaching repercussions.
denzeldavid says
@parengtony: If you will read again Raissa’s article without the created biases already in your mind, giving fair stand to the person involved you may find discrepancies itself in Raissa’s supposedly pointed out discrepancies. It could be a product of one’s prejudice to have its meaning twisted and conform to what the writer wants it to be.
It would be prudent for a journalist to investigate and gather facts first before making any conclusion or insinuation. Otherwise, it will be totally unfair to the person involved.
“how nothing is so innocent you can’t put malice into it”
parengtony says
Like Esposo, you are ignoring the discrepancies between the Puno and Tanseco versions.
denzeldavid says
@parengtony: the Tanseco version you are taking as a gospel truth may not even be an accurate account, as Raissa herself said not in the order she asked him. Even her interpretation appears to be blurry.
Maintaining open mindedness is more sensible
Johnny Lin says
“Too cheap claiming innocence from overwhelming evidence”
CDQ supports Puno’s claim of innocence yet his proof contradicts the facts known so far. CDQ without proof avers that that nobody was in the condo unit, specifically the maid did not talk to Tanseco. This proof alone belies the claim of innocence.
Aquino admitted that his order did not include going to Robredo residence, affirmed by Puno in his Sept 11 statement. Overwhelming evidence shows that Puno being undersectary of peace and order(PNP) is administrative superior of Tanseco, based on government protocol of seniority.
CDQ fostering the lie that nobody was in the condo, probably, was motivated to exonerate Puno from invasion of privacy by not getting consent from the owner of property on the intention to secure and whatever other motives of private property and to accuse Mrs Robredo she lied to the press by saying her maid talk to Tanseco.
Puno positively admitted that Tanseco went to the condo unit while Tanseco categorically affirmed to the press that he talked to the maid and told Raissa that he was definitely inside the condo unit(when I left the room).
Prove these facts are not true:
1. Puno did not get consent from Mrs Robredo to go to condo.
2. Puno did not have authority from Pres Aquino to go to condo
3. Puno is senior to Tanseco in the DILG administrative ladder
4. Tanseco went inside condo unit and talked to the maid.
Prove with supporting facts the claim of innocence of above 4 evidences. specifically, from CDQ his documented proof (against Mrs. Robredo initial recorded interview) that nobody was inside the Robredo’s condo unit when Puno went to the condo complex.
Talk is cheap!
He he he.
Joe America says
The facts may be true, but innocent.
1. Overlooked; human mistake
2. Personal initiative; he’s a big boy with a big job (go for the joke in that one, Johnny)
3. Immaterial
4. Securing the files or the condo in which the files were (ore were not) located
It is not the defense job to prove innocence. It is the prosecution’s job to prove guilt.
The problem with all your facts is that they presume guilt, that Mr. Puno went to the condo for ill purpose.
You are not allowed to be both the prosecutor and the judge. Here, you are the prosecutor.
he
andrew lim says
I just want to add that discrepancies in recollection of events do not automatically mean something criminal is happening.
In many studies of witnesses in court cases, (e.g. murders, car accidents) recollection is never 100% consistent. The discrepancies could arise from a number of reasons: faulty recollection, weak memory, bias (racial, religious bigotry, partisan politics,etc), relative position or location of witness when crime happened, etc.
A man makes a wrong recollection of when he had dinner with his female boss. Women’s intuition goes bonkers, and accuses him of having an affair!
Joe America says
Excellent. I may have to recruit you for the defense panel.
Johnny Lin says
According to witness psychology:
The initial revelation is almost always nearer the truth expressed without input from outside forces except honest recollection. Dishonesty follows after realizing gravity of recovery played skillfully by combatants.
Are you on the opposite genre?
He he he!
Johnny Lin says
Joe
Who said about being guilty? Not Johnny, its joe?
Premise of contention were innocence and malice! “how nothing is so innocent, you cant put malice into it” when facts are denied, malice imputed.
1. Overlooked human mistake, to me more of empty cerebrum.
2.
3. Immaterial, he he rather immoral
4. Securing the files confirmed without consent by Leni.
Heeeeeer’essss Johnny, d’ joke:
2. Big boy with a big job landed with a big bang bang
He he he
Johnny Lin says
Another joke
Big boy with a big job has degree in agriculture,
Dreams of big harvest but forgot to sprinkle fertilizer
Big empty brain down the big drain
(Big harvest is securing, Fertilizer is consent)
kapish
He he he
Joe America says
Kapish
Cerebrum empty
Fertilizer stink
Big boy back to farm
denzeldavid says
There’s nothing here Raissa, merely a reprint of your article, Just the same, the contradictions you pointed out are still questionable.
As Conrado de Quiros quoted “ how nothing is so innocent you can’t put malice into it”
Johnny Lin says
Show proof of innocence.
CDQ is telling a lie that nobody was in Robredo’s condo unit when Puno went to condo complex.
How could a prolific writer talk so cheap like the medicine man in old west or the realtor of Luneta!
Hand is closer to the brain than the mouth,
he he he!
denzeldavid says
Ha ha ha and a guy with a close mind is a Doofus
Johnny Lin says
Ngik ngik ngik
Brain is really located inside the thumb. CdQ and his believers call themselves now OJ Simpsons of the Philippines. Loook it up in PDI.
Nincompoop much much much inteligent than OJ, pit of scumbags. Can’t deny!
He he he
denzeldavid says
Really proves a Doofus
Concentrating in only one writing and discrepancy, but ignoring the other writings really proves a Doofus.
The brain really in the thumb
baycas says
@raissa,
could it be him who signed the leaked document?
baycas says
Oops, the document has DILG letterhead…not NAPOLCOM.
snv says
“Atty Reynator R. Ablerto, ESQ.” Para mo nang sinabing “repeat it again for the second time.”
Esq. means esquire, and is used in the US in lieu of Atty. in front of the name. So one either says Atty. Something (Philippine style), or Something, Esq. (US style).
Maybe the guy is a lawyer in both the Philippines and the US, so the use of Atty. Esq.
baycas says
@snv,
‘Di ko alam. Copy-pasted it from the Napolcom site kaya siya in blockquotes.
baycas says
Btw, siya lang ang may [Tanduay] ESQ doon.
snv says
I meant him, not you. I should have said para na niyang sinabi…
Leona says
5 year or 12 year old?
chiwee says
ICE. Tanduay Ice. :-)
Leona says
Under the rules one needs a SC permission here to “use” the word “Esq.” Does he have such permission?
kasama says
ask ko lang po, cause of curiosity. What specific rule po iyan? thank you.
Leona says
@kasama…Una rule: SEC. 3 Rule 138 Revised Rules of Court 1997.
2nd rule: (a) SEC. 20, Ibid.
Thank you too for asking. Just my opn. You could have your own. “ESQ” is not for IBP members…British, US or European maybe. Many here can be awed with it. SC justices may not want that for 16 different reasons [ 15 justices & the Per curiam ].
Leona says
…why do say or ask that question about being also “ESQ”? What does this abbrev stand for?….excellent spy quno…? esq…aged to 5 or 12 yrs?…just joking @baycas…galing mo!
Victin Luz says
The right of the people to be secure on their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.
Naniniwala din po kami na ang utos ni PUNO kay TANSECO to secure the papers was LAWFUL . It was a lawful order and it was really a protocol but ….PUNO and TANSECO being a high ranking officials of DILG and an EXPERT on all the PROCEDURES in SECURING PAPERS,……..kaming mga ordinaryong mamayan ng PILIPINAS ay hindi makapaniwala na hindi nyo sinunud ang alituntunin ng BILL of RIGHTS maging ang GMRC nyo na magpaalam kay ginang ROBREDO bago pumunta sa CONDO UNIT nila para mag SECURE kung ano o alin man sa loob.
Kung ang I secure ni PUNO at TANSECO ay ang CONDO UNIT ( sealed nila ) kailangan po din ng COURT ORDER dahil kung wala ay VIOLATION din ng DOMICILE dahil kasakukuyan na may nakatira sa UNIT at ang katulong nga dipo ba.
Ngayon kung ang I secure nila ay ang CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ay mas lalo na po na kailangan ng COURT ORDER, kasi kung wal ang daming VIOLSTION of DOMICILE dahil ang daming nakatira sa BUILDING noon.
Kahit siguro gwardya o police ang iwanan mo sa baba o labas ng BUILDING ( within the private ownership of the condo bldg. ) kung or if TENANTS are to be intimidated by your posting of guards thereby you had already violated their DOMICILES thus court order is badly needed.
PINAG ARALAN NG KAPOLISAN ITO. EXPERT SILA DITO.
ADELANTADO at SIGURISTA si PUNO kaya SUMAMA sya kay TANSECO sa CONDO….kagaya nang ginawa nya na OBSERVER ang sarili nya sa BIDDING’s PROCESS na hindi naman dapat kasi he or they can always check and cancel the result of the BIDDING kasi may post bidding/qualification pa naman bago mo award ang contract or an issuance of NOTICE to PROCEED ika nga.
Why not try to ask other government agencies how are bidding process implemented on their respective departments.
snv says
Secure the documents? Simple lang. Put a yellow police tape around the condo and the office; the ones that say “Do not cross.”
They could have also fortified the condo’s private security guards by stationing a police officer at the lobby with them.
Victin Luz says
Yes you can do that , but the condominium unit owners can also go to the court for VIOLLATION of their DOMICILEs if kagaya nga ang nangyari wala namang tumakbong o nagtagong criminal doon …..their was no HOT PURSUIT nor the security of the STAE was BEING COMPROMISE.
So they really have to get the consent of MRS.R if they don’t like to get SEARCH WARRANT…..
And this is to remind everybody ….. Hindi ako lawer ha……..pero in securing a search warrant from the court….. Masasabi kaya nila kung ano ang papeles na I search nila sa judge………… Remember again as our lawyer said , specific and detailed ang description mo sa papeles na kukunin mo,….otherwise pag GENERAL SEARCH WARRAT daw ang nakuha mo ay papasok ang sinasabi nilang FRUITs of POISONOUS TREE…. He he aywan ko sabi ng mga KAPOLISAN hinding hindi mo matatawaran ang KARUNUNGAN nila sa ganitong sitwasyon .
snv says
Violation of domicile requires an entry.
A search warrant is needed for a search of the premises (loob ng bahay). You do not need a search warrant to stand outside the house.
No need for either when entry by others to the house is sought to be prevented. Yun lang naman ang dapat na ginawa, in order to secure the papers, if that were the true intent.
But the entry belies the stated intent. Gusto talagang kunin ang documento, kung pinasok ang bahay.
Victin Luz says
Ganoon ho ba , but the lobby so as the corridor,open spaces and aisle are owned by the condominium ownres to be utilize only by them and dues are paid for the maintenance only by the condo owners to the exception of outsiders like a police that you are going to post on the building.
TO BE UTILIZE PRIVATELY ONLY BY THE CONDO OWNERS…. In addition to their units ( dwellings ) in many instances add on ” sa privacy nila ” like B DAY party or X mas PARTIES.
POSTING POLICE on that CONDO I think is VIOLATION of DOMICILE sir.
A condominium corporation ( members or owners of condo units ) have even BY LAWS sir diba,
SEALING the BLDG. by posting police thereby …. kahit po kami ay hindi abogado ay VIOLATION of DOMICILE din iyan at isa pa MAYROONG ENTRANCE din ang CONDO BLDG. dipo ba SIR. kaya kailangan din ang COURT ORDER o CONSENT nang CONDO CORP to seal the property.
Victin Luz says
Condominium building had an ENTRANCE and an INFORMATION DESK manned by a guard ” kung nagtitipid ang condo corporation/association ” except for the units which can be owned individually and also parking lots, all other OPEN SPACES are owned by the corporation ( commonly owned by the owners of the condo units with the exclusions of others )
snv says
Here is the provision of the Revised Penal Code:
Maliwanag ang batas, “shall enter any dwelling”.
Kung nasa labas, walang violation of domicile. One may make out a civil case, but there is no criminal case.
Kung talagang maingat ang police, puwede rin sanang ang building ang cordoned off sa mga pumapasok; at tatanunging ang bawa’t pumasok kung residente siya ng building. Yan ang ginawa sa mga builidng, in fact streets of Lower Manhattan after 9/11.
Yvonne says
@snv 53.1, you are quoting out of context.
.
Entering a dwelling alone is not a violation of domicile. Other elements have to be present to make that act a violation: (1) it is against the will of the owner, and (2) the act includes searching of papers or other effects found in the dwelling without previous consent.
It is also a violation if a person gained entry under false pretenses (using deception) and refused to leave the dwelling when asked to do so.
Tanseco, being a high ranking police officer, presumably knows these elements – that is why he told Raissa during the interview that:
a. He did not touch anything.
b. He quickly steeped out of the condo unit when he realized that the permission of the owner to secure the unit has not yet been obtained by his superiors and his attempt to secure permission from the presumed lawful representative of the owner was refused.
Victin Luz says
He he sir I am not convence. Ito ha it’s against the will of the owners ( I say owners kasi that condo bldng. Were owned by many or by the condominium corporation.
Ang ping uusapan natin ay ang pag iwan ng policemen sa labas ng ENTRANCE bg CONDO BLDNG if you are going to seal the same without the consent of the OWNERS/ CORPORATION.
SHALL ENTER ANY DWELLING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER…………malinaw @snv…….DWELLING,…. Is also considered a building designed or USED as the LIVING QUARTERs FOR ONE or MORE FAMILIES……..CONDO BUILDING sir meaning.
ang linaw yan ATTY svn. With all the elements of the crime , VIOLATION of DOMICILE iyan.
As I said earlier, by posting policemen at the lobby even outside the entrance of the CONDO BLDNG. thus intimidating the owners on their peacefulness , happiness and harmony among the families in STAYING/LIVING on the BLDNG. Is a VIOLATION of DOMICILE.
Victin Luz says
@@@SVN….. Para sa iyo ang comment ko friend. Dictionary Lang ang hawak ko dito at ang apo ko sa pamangkin na grade 6 , ang sabi nya if you post a policeman sa apartment namin kahit sa labas lang ay matatakot na dyang lumabas na maglaro kaya….VIOLATION din DAW ng DOMICILE sir. CONVINCE US SIRR.
docbebot says
Yun trabaho ni Pagdilao mag lagay yellow police tape. Si Esposo taga sira ng upuan at si De Quiros mag kuskus ng asin sa sugat. Si Puno syempre nakatayo lang parang nagmamanman.
WanbolUanalysis
Yvonne says
Folks, did it ever occur to anyone that CDQ might be telling the truth in saying that there is no “maid” because in his mind, walang katulong sila Robredo sa condo unit?
Leni is surely telling the truth in saying that a “kasambahay” called to report that some people are trying to gain access to the condo unit. And by “kasambahay”, Leni c ould be referring to a “katiwala”, or someone who might simply be house-sitting.
And because it is a condo unit, it is not far-fetched to use the word “kasambahay” loosely to refer to a trusted neighbor from an adjoining unit – since bahay could mean the condo building.
Call it a draw, give it a rest, and move on.
LOL.
raissa says
Words.
snv says
Kasambahay is a contraction of kasama sa bahay. That cannot be a neighbor.
Even if there were a katiwala who is a mere neighbor, this belies CDQ’s statement that:
Leona says
Raissa has not “yet” had a chance of interview Atty. Leni. The latter was so much under stress. Many things one can say or do, etc. under such stress. Truth cannot be at this time established from Atty. Leni who made a remark about a “maid at their Condo” but this is not in response to a question. It was her own spontaneous voluntary answer. (Am I right?) Time will tell. Was there a maid or not at the Condo residence?
baycas says
Ang galing ni CDQ na manlito…
Sino’ng paniniwalaan?
Re the presence of a domestic helper in the condo unit…
I trust the widow than Conradow.
—–
Btw, one may consult gloria arroyo on the definition of “kasambahay”. She started the Kasambahay Bill. Jinggoy is presently doing a parallel law-making job on it at the Senate.
Vibora says
If there is “no maid” who open the door of the room for Tanseco?
Tanseco – “Yung assumption ko, nakapagcoordinate with the family. since no instruction was given, I immediately stepped out of the room.”
Does he have a key?
If no key, a case of “break-in”?
pelang says
@yvonne: a neighbor, on a look-out? maybe it wasn’t a maid, but it must be a trusted person by Mrs. Robredo. not a neighbor who was looking out. this person must be inside the condo unit when Tanseco came. He talked to her before entering the condo unit. sa palagay mo kaya, kinausap lang niya sa pintuan ang taong iyon? then, bakit hindi nakita ni Tanseco sila Puno at Pagdilao na parating na sa may pintuan? ang pagka-intindi ko, pumasok si Tanseco sa unit at nagulat siya nang paglabas niya nandodo’n na rin sa may pintuan sina Puno. talagang misteryo ang pangyayaring ito. at ito na mang si Esposo, talagang sayang. I read Philstar just because i want to read his column and the same is true with PDI because of CDQ. ngayon wala na akong ganang magbasa doon. Sinira lang nila ang kanilang pangalan. Mabuti pa dito kay Maam Raissa, nalalaman ko ang nangyayari sa atin.
Martial Bonifacio says
Ma’am Raissa post ko lang po itong article from NY times so pinoys in PHL can read/understand another angle of the disputes in west PHL sea and Senakaku island.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/asia/xi-jinping-returns-amid-tumult-in-china.html?_r=1&ref=asia
T.Y. :)
Yvonne says
WHO IS THE PERSON IN FULL CONTROL AND WHO IS THE PATSY?
.
Let us pause for a moment and look at the events in a different perspective.
Many people are inclined to believe that the attempted “raid” on Robredo’s condo unit was instigated by Puno in search of documents that might be incriminating to him pursuant to Robredo’s investigation on alleged weapons overpricing, or jueteng activities, or illegal logging.
To find out if this conclusion holds water, we have to look at the greater picture – before, during, and after the alleged “raid.”
So far there has been no allegation of wrong-doing as far as the attempt to “secure” the documents in Robredo’s government offices. The furor is centered on the attempt to “raid” his private condo unit.
From news reports, it appears that Puno was done with “securing” the government offices of Robredo, as ordered by President Aquino, until Tanseco pointed out to Puno that Robredo could also have some other documents in his private condo. Typically police officers are trained to comply strictly to the letters of their order – no more, no less – so it becomes a curiosity why Tanseco would brought up the matter of the condo unit when the order of the President was already complied with.
One impression created by Tanseco’s action was that he connived with Puno (or vice-versa) to look for what could be some documents in Robredo possession that could be damaging to Puno, or to the PNP.
But what if Tanseco, in all honesty, simply wanted to secure (protect) the documents but just had a serious lapse of judgment by not asking for legal permission, or checking if permission has already been granted, from the Robredos to enter their condo unit?
What if he was really acting proactively and became overzealous in securing the papers because he wanted to gain “pogi points”, or political capital, from Puno, or his superiors to use as leverage for future favor or promotion?
And what if, on the other hand, he only created a pretext to Puno to be able to gain access to the condo unit in search for any dirty laundry or skeleton in the closet, on Robredo, to try to neutralize him from disclosing things that could be embarrassing to his institution, the PNP (and not necessarily to Puno)?
Under any of these scenario, Tanseco would be the smooth-talking operative misdirecting Puno and Puno became the patsy.
Now, let us assume the worst and say that the real intent was to gain access to documents related to Robredo’s confidential investigation. What was the end goal?
1. Was it to destroy the documents? How? By burning or shedding hard copies of the documents? By deleting or tampering with documents that are in electronic form?
2. Was it simply to learn what Robredo already knew so that they can cover their tracks, or to preempt the disclosure of such information, or do some damage control?
3. Was it to know the persons who might be cooperating with Robredo so that they can intimidate or stop those persons from cooperating with the investigations?
4. Was it to tamper with the documents to water down the report that will be submitted to President Aquino?
Corollary to these questions are:
5. Did they bring any bags or envelopes going in, or going out, of the condo unit?
6. Did bring in any photographic or copying device?
7. Did they bring in any electronic storage device such as a disk or a USB drive?
8. Did they bring in shredding equipment?
9. Did they bring out any computer equipment?
10. How long did it take to secure the documents (or for that matter, the place)? Half an hour? An hour? Half a day? (The length of their stay would be indicative of what they intended to do there.)
11. Where they verbally reporting to someone else what was going on at that time?
12. What would the CCTVs on the condo building show about the conduct of the “raid”?
13. What does the condo security log show?
14. In what way did Tanseco gained entrance to the condo unit? (It will show the presence or absence of malice.
)
Could it be that Puno asked Tanseco to go up first to the condo unit (with the intent to follow him later) to be discreet so as not to draw attention to their presence at the unit? Or, could it be an attempt to make the maid comfortable and drop her guard down when dealing with just one person rather than a group of persons?
Let us assume that Puno and company were indeed looking for some documents. Wouldn’t it make more sense if Tanseco would have company inside the condo unit to expedite the search? Wouldn’t it make more sense that they would be working in tandem and comparing or exchanging comments – Is this what we are looking for? Hey, look at this, what do you make out of this record? I’ll take the bedroom, you do the living room! I got it, let’s get out of here quick! Or something like that.
There is also a general misconception that documents are typically in printed hard copies. Indeed, someone posted here that Tanseco could have brought in a camera, took some photos, stack up the documents neatly again, and wipe off his prints. That is so 1970s – in the years of the typewriters! These days that would probably happen in one percent of the time.
In ninety-nine percent of the time, documents are normally in word file, pdf file, XL file, or in a power point presentation. They are not hidden in filing cabinets but reside in computer hard drives, in DVD disks, or in USB storage devices. In these days documents are typically not printed until the day they are needed for distribution and discussion.
So if I were looking for some documents with the intent of knowing their contents, or destroying them, or tampering with their contents, then yes I would be casually looking around first for some printed hard copies of documents but I would be spending most of my time checking a computer equipment – desktop, laptop, netbook, or ipad – to look for files, emails, photos, scanned records, and the like. And I would surely hope that those files and records are not password protected or encrypted.
This process would be tedious and time-consuming that the most logical thing to do is copy the files into a portable hard drive, disk, or USB drive. And of course, if the “securing” is legitimate and lawful the normal thing to do is bring the computer equipment with them to their office for examination – that is what the FBI and police organizations do.
I’m not accusing, or even implying, that Tanseco (or, Puno for that matter) committed an unlawful act. I’m not defending them either. I do not have the facts and the competence to do either one. I’m just pointing that in an episode like this there are many possibilities and “what ifs” that our personal biases can easily cloud our good judgment and the truth becomes the real victim.
Could the whole episode be a legitimate and well-intended act gone awry simply due to incompetence reminiscent of the Luneta tourists massacre, or was it a devious ploy reminiscent of the Watergate scandal?
Let me make it clear: I’m neither for, nor against, any of the personalities involved in the “raid”. And although I have a negative opinion of Puno and some of the police officers, I will not let my negative opinion of them cloud my sense of truth and fairness.
Really, who is the person in full control, and who is the patsy?
raissa says
But Tanseco specifically told me he was not there to obtain documents:
Leona says
Raissa, I just find it irregular to “think” of securing “a premises” for somethings one has no idea what’s inside of it. Who really was the “first” who thought of securing the Condo residence of Sec. Robredo? Tanseco or Puno? If Tanseco, why then say “xxx not to look for documents.” Then what was the point of “securing” that space? No suspected bombs were there. No unlicense heavy firearms. What? They must have some other things in mind that prompted them hurriedly to “secure” the premises but now refuse to elaborate many points, small and big, about it.
Many will be saying “Why all this brouhaha” about nothing or so ordinary something?
The answer is. Is there silence in the context of distorting simple facts…amounting to lying (even if not under oath?) to mislead and paint the truth?
Then, WHY? The “motive” must be so heavy and important to protect someone or many.
We are interested in this brouhaha because MANY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES (I am sure) will be “duplicated” in the very near future with identical DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what happened.
denzeldavid says
Raissa,
The declaration of Tanseco “Not to look for documents” can be categorically correct because they were not actually looking, but securing documents and they don’t care what documents it is. That was their mandate from the President.
Jan says
You forgot what Tanseco said: “The reason why I’m there was to brief the katulong – na walang papapasukin. Walang repair ng cable, TV, magdeliver the tubig.”
Leona says
Your many points here are so good that Sen. Meriam could have thought of the same at the Senate hearing but didn’t! “Why” the surprising unusual no BONGA! at the hearing?
Not the usual actions of the lady senator…?
As I am expecting and said before here, many are becoming also silent…don’t know about this…or that. Just an observer ako….
tristanism says
Thank you for that sober comment.
We need intent. Why would they “raid” the Robredo condo?
He was under investigation. For what? What do we know about the investigation?
The was charged with being an illegal logger, a gun runner and a gambling lord (I’m exaggerating, of course). But where is the rest of the details. I don’t see any more news reports about these in the media.
People are zeroing in on the “raid” as if the actual “raid” is all the evidence we need to conclude that Puno is a crook.
There are several ways to interpret what happened in that condo unit, and so far people are choosing the most exciting one.
pelang says
@yvonne, di ba sabi ni mrs. robredo according to her kasambahay ay merong mga taong naghahanap ng dokumento or something like that. that means, mga are more than one person. then, hindi lang si Tanseco ang nakausap ng kasambahay kundi pati ang mga kasama niya. at saka Tanseco denied to Raissa that he was looking for documents when he went to the codo unit, but Ms. Robredo herself confirmed that that was what her kasambahay said to her on the phone. to which she answered, huwag papasukin.
Yvonne says
@pelang, sabi ng kasambahay ay may “mga tao” pero hindi ibig sabihin ay nakausap niya ang ibang tao maliban kay Tanseco – maaaring nakita lamang niya.
Tama yung salitang may “mga tao” dahil sabi ni Tanseco ay sinamahan siya ng isang security guard ng condo na pumunta sa unit – so, at least, dalawa yung umakyat.
Johnny Lin says
Agree.
Yung katulong nakausap mi Tanseco.
Nung lalabas si Tanseco, pagbukas ng pinto nakita niya nakatayo sa labas ng pinto si Puno at Pagdilao. Sigurado nakita sila ng katulong dahil isasara niya ang pinto pagalis ni Tanseco.
Maari noon nakita ng katulong na tatlo na yung tao ang nasa pintuan, noon niya tinawagan si Mrs. Robredo at sinumbong “may mga tao” kaya sinagot ni Mrs. Robredo, “wag mong papasukin”. Nasa labas ng pinto kaya ang sagot sa kanya wag papasukin o kaya ibig sabihin ni Mrs. Kung babalik sila wag papasukin. Ganun pa man mahigit sa isang tao ang nakita ng katulong kaya ang kataga ni Mrs Robredo ay ” mga tao(persons)”
docbebot says
Tanseco was Robredo’s man while Pagdilao is Pnoy’s.
baycas says
The Ombudsman must investigate on its own…
http://www.propinoy.net/2012/09/14/just-give-it-to-the-ombudsman/
docbebot says
Which case, Raid, Glock or Galil? (Pls watch Raid Retribution. Talo tayo ng Indonesian pagdating sa action movies)
baycas says
Which movie?
The 1954 film “The Raid” or the “Resident Evil: Retribution“?
Aah, the Indonesian film.
Well, that would be the 2011 “The Raid” (original title). Its U.S. release was titled “The Raid: Redemption”.
I believe it will be a trilogy. Magandang aksiyon!!!
To your question…
Manuel Buencamino blogged the “Puno case”.
docbebot says
Salamat Baycas sa pagtatama ng kalituhan ko. Relax watch a movie, ika nga. Tanong lang Baycas, papaano hahabuli si Puno ni Madame Ombudsman kung wala na ito sa trabaho at ano ang motu propio, d ba dehado itong galaw kung mangyayari man? Pero kuha ko punto ni Buencamino mas pogi si Pnoy pag ipagpaubaya nya sa Ombudsman. Walang kabikaibigan. Imposible.
Leona says
@docbebot…eh, bakit si ex-CJ Corona, wala na sa trabaho, hinahabol ng Ombudsman pa rin. Pati sa BIR hina habol siya! Malamang Puno in the last end will be “forgiven” by the owner of the Condo residence but tama ka “Moto Propio” the Ombudsman can still legally go to investigate if there was any abuse of official functions, etc., considering that the Condo residence is “a castle” under protection by our laws…a sensitive if not a very sensitive haven of a citizen. It is the call of the Ombudsman. We wait & see.
Leona says
that movie is very like the Luneta Tourist Bus fiasco! ‘Di malayo pag oriental action…
LahingPikutin says
According to Mr. Esposo, there is no house maid from the beginning. then who called Mrs. Robredo and informed her about the attempted “raid”? hindi ba si Mrs. Robredo mismo ang nagsabi na ang maid nila sa condo ang nagsumbong sa kanya about the break-in??? and then Sec. De Lima was with her and she asked for help.
raissa says
I think that’s Conrado de Quiros’ version – no housemaid.
Joe America says
The missing wench?
baycas says
baycas says
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/07/12/leni-confirms-puno-raid-after-robredo-plane-crash
baycas says
CDQ and Esposo are part of the deception.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/07/12/robredo-probing-puno-arms-deal-crash
Mel says
Out of topic, but heavily commented regarding Sotto’s plagiarism (Sen. Sotto accuses bloggers of payoffs & proposes an “anti-blogging” bill #95, 84, 78, 77)
More info.
– Aquino signs law against cybersex, other internet-related crimes – INQUIRER.net
– Aquino signs Cybercrime Prevention Act into law – ABS-CBNnews.com
– HB 5808 Cyber Crime 3rd Reading. House Bill No. 5808, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was passed by Congress on third and final reading.
Martial Bonifacio says
1. The other sections inside the law is okay (like hacking, cyber sex etc.) for me, what i don’t like is the libel part of it since its very unclear and might prevent freedom of speech.
It is another protection coat for people in power (like Sen. Sotto) so that they cant be questioned or be held accountable for whatever they do or said (plagiarism). They are trying to silence people from crowd sourcing and exchanging of ideas between filipinos around the world.
2. Now that i think of the law thoroughly i remembered it will be implimented in the Philippines, so they will always have implementation problems unlike in other countries.
So freedom of speech will not be affected :)
Leona says
@Martial…create a “test case” para malaman natin lahat ang resulta…like that “Monkey Trial” in US re that teacher who taught that “man evolved from the monkeys”…he was found guilty and fined for $1 think, but the conviction was appealed…Court ruled “violation of free speech” [ yata ].
But, lately I came across a comment that If “man evolved from monkeys” why are there still monkeys around? …hahaha. ‘Di pa tapos yata ang evolution! MONKEY DO…
Leona says
Women “never” evolved from monkeys…NEVER! Bakit? what is the proof? Hulaan niyo…