6 January
2013
Last
December 28 we celebrated the 3rd birthday of one of my granddaughters,
Lucia Beatriz, in one outlet of a big fast food chain located along C5 in
Libis, Quezon City. Upon reaching the place we found out that the parking slots
were already filled up so we were directed by the security guard to park in a
space located along the sidewalk of the road perpendicular to C5 and located
immediately after the food chain outlet’s property line. When the party was
over at about 7PM, we found out that the car of one guest was burglarized. The
car’s window was broken and some traveling bags, one of them containing the
guest’s laptop, were stolen.
When we
complained to the security guard on duty regarding the damage and the loss, we
were disappointed and even felt offended by his cavalier response. He seemed
unconcerned, saying that he did not notice anything and even emphasized that a
valuable item, like the laptop, should not have been left in the car.
With this
we brought the matter to the attention of the store manager, relating to him
how we (their customers and guests) somehow expected a certain degree of
protection for our cars given that we (yes, including myself) were directed to
park outside of the store’s parking lot by their security guard. After
inspecting the scene with us, the manager suggested and volunteered to report
the incident to the police.
Within 15
minutes, a police car manned by 3 personnel arrived to investigate, and who
suggested that the victim (who is a medical intern) have the theft blotterred
in the police station nearby. The entire group proceeded to the police station
to do what was suggested.
Although it
is true that it is one’s personal responsibility to make sure that one’s
valuables are secured, those of us who were directed to park outside the
store’s property were not warned at all (or at least reminded to secure
valuables verbally or through a sign) given that the place – according to the
police - is notorious for motor vehicle burglary. This also may justify pointing
a guilty finger at the management of that food store for failing to appreciate
and address the threats to the properties of their customers…which, as far as I
am concerned, sorely depreciates their “quality of service”.
I believe
that our group’s bad experience was not the first time that such an incident
happened. Otherwise the police wouldn’t have “labeled” the place as notorious.
Such a condition should have prompted the store’s management to enhance vehicle
security measures by implementing a systematic inspection of the temporary
parking space where guests are directed to go
every time a parking overload occurs (which I believe happens
frequently). They could have also provided a CCTV for the said area to act as an
additional deterrent and a means of identifying culprits if a burglary does
happen. It would have been a nice display of higher “social quality” if the
store management and the assigned security guard did the so called “extra mile”
to protect their customer’s property without prodding.
By the way,
the interaction with the policemen at the station, I would say, was surprisingly
a pleasure - with the system set in place for the blottering activity (which
was prominently and neatly posted on one wall), and to a big extent, by the
decorum shown by the desk sergeant. It also turned out to be quite interesting
as we were able to pick up from our conversation with the policemen certain
information which to my mind somehow deters the station’s ability to fight
crime. I gathered that each of the patrol cars in that station (all of which I
understand came from the local government) is allocated with only 5 liters of
gasoline for each 8 hour shift. And my personal appreciation of this condition
is that, if each vehicle is required to show its presence in its area of
responsibility every hour, they can use only about 0.625 liter per hour, or
travel only 7.5 kilometers for a given hour (given a car with a consumption of 12
km/liter). This does not provide much support for the mobility of the
policemen, which I believe has a direct impact on their effectiveness in
deterring crime.
Surprisingly,
we also found out that flashlights are not readily available in that police
station because one member of our group tried to borrow a flashlight to search
something in his car, and my understanding of the response was that none was
available as the lone flashlight was used by a mobile that went on patrol. This
made me quip that security guards seem better equipped (when it comes to flash
lights at least). It seems also that they have not been visited by their higher
ups, as one officer reluctantly answered in the negative when queried as to how
frequent the senior officers inspect their station. I believe that such a
situation represents failed opportunities for leading and boosting the morale
of personnel on the ground.
If my
observations are correct, I hope that it is not the norm in the other stations
nationwide. It may be worthwhile for the current PNP leadership to look deeper
into the matter and formulate/implement whatever corrective action that may be
needed.
Comments/reactions
will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email
(sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment