There's a cautionary tale here for all of us: next time you are confronted with a potentially explosive situation over something that really doesn't matter, walk away, turn the other cheek.

How silly: all this commotion, all the damage to reputations over, basically, who's off first on the next tee. And during the season of "peace on Earth; good will toward all men."

Regardless what prompted dela Paz to poke an umbrella, I bet he now wishes he hadn't. Whatever caused the mayor's brother to escalate from what sounds like a bit of macho posturing on one side to a full-scale brawl on the other, I bet he wishes he hadn't.

The guy who came running into the clubhouse with a gun and guy who carried in a rifle in a suitcase, they probably wish they hadn't.

I rarely -- if ever -- get angry on the golf course. I wish I could say the same thing about driving to and from the golf course.

But again, a good lesson here for all of us. Why fight and argue, when simply being a bit more accommodating and a bit more pleasant makes life easier and more fun, even when the other guy is "wrong" in our eyes.

I'll try and keep that in mind tomorrow as I fight my way through traffic to some remote corner of Quezon City to find a dog breeder.

If what your posted Sir RGE is truly the "official findings" of Valley Golf, then it is clearly very lopsided and obvious where the findings favor.



It seems the committee gave Pangandaman so much room to explain himself that "they did not disturb them (dela Paz's) anymore." Common sense would say that it would be less disturbing to just stay put, wait for the players to hit, then after that they could have asked permission or made courtesy.

On the contrary, did the committee air the side of the dela Paz's on why they hit to the par 3? Perhaps they thought they were being waived. perhaps they thought there was no one there anymore. We'll never know. So why did the committee have to include the detail that an 8-year old was nearly hit without even airing the reasons dela Paz hit into the hole? Maybe the committee wanted to paint a picture of dela Paz with ill-motives?

I just find it really odd that the Pangandamans were able to explain themselves on why they overtook without asking permission (they didnt want to disturb them) but the dela Paz group was not asked why they hit to the green (or if they were asked and they explained - then why it was not included in their report).



There you go. It was never clear, and they are just asking the caddies. Why not just ask the players who hit? Maybe it was the caddies who gave clearance to them that made them hit. So the reason could have been they were misled by the caddies. We'll never know because the committee turned a blind eye to the side of the dela Paz camp.



This statement here contradicts itself. After the single "poke", Hussein run to his brother as he was about to be poked again? How could Hussein run 15 to 20 yards? From one poke to the next, it will only take less than half a second. Even assuming it was a "swing" and not a poke, from the backswing to followthrough of the umbrella, it would take a hair over 1 second at most. No human being can run 15 to 20 yards in 1 second. And there was no report of a second poke. It was just one poke, why did it take so long for the second poke? And where did the committee get the idea that Pangandaman was "about to be poked again"? Did they even asked dela Paz why it took him so long to poke again and why it took Hussein so fast to get to dela Paz and attack, hit, and knock him to the ground?

Even at this point, the story already has many holes. Besides, if you are two flights of 8 people and there is only 1 male adult with an umbrella, the prudent action would be the hold him and disarm him, not to attack, hit, and knock him to the ground.



Attacking is clearly more applicable term here, rather than subduing. How long it lasted is irrelevant. The length of time was enough to make the dela Paz dad and son sustain all those injuries.



I hope the committee will give weight to this statement. It just shows that nowhere did dela Paz invite anyone to do violent acts. This will also help show that the mom and son brought a baseball bat perhaps to protect themselves or as a precautionary measure.



It wasn't the dela Paz side but actually the flightmate of Pangandaman (see my cut and paste of his statement in page 5 of this thread in dark red color) who witnessed that Bino said his age and pleaded. So the committee should not have just relied of the witnesses in the clubhouse, but also the flightmate of Pangandaman.

Also, there was no kneeling. Bino was pleading and this happened in the course, not in the clubhouse. Besides, it doesn't matter if the witnesses heard Bino say his age. As early as the golf course, Bambee was already shouting: "Nakakahiya kayo. Singkwenta'y sais anyos ang tatay ko. And kapatid ko kakatorse anyos. Anong ilalaban nila sayo?" This is mentioned in her blog, and I don't think she would make that up. The conclusion can only be that the attackers knew Bino was 14. Besides, knowledge of age is not an element of child abuse. Take for instance statutory rape, just because you thought the girl was of age but it turns out she was below 12, it doesn't mean you cannot be convicted of that.



Well just because he sounded tough and angry as opposed to scared and shaking doesn't make him an aggressor. Check out the careful wording that it was "enough that the fight broke out again." Does it even mention if Bino threw the first punch? Not at all. In Bambee's blog, the mayor punched Bino first. In this report, it says "the fight broke out again" just because Bino sounded tough, angry and antagonistic. Is that enough reason to fight the kid again?



I beg to disagree but perhaps I am not a "normal human being." If I belonged to a group of eight and the other side was just a dad with an umbrella, a young boy, and his sister, I would move to disarm the dad if he truly were the aggressor. It would be a cinch to achieve that.

It was actually superhuman for Hussein to run 15 to 20 yards so fast when his intention was to prevent a second "umbrella poke" from happening which was in point blank range. He should give Usain Bolt a run for his money.

Also, let us revisit the clubhouse incident. Bino's being tough, angry, and antagonistic is just an observation and not a statement of fact. It is just an interpretation of his action. Did Bino ever throw the first punch? It was never said. Yet, he was badly beaten up in the clubhouse.

At the end of the day, who outnumbered who? Who were the ones who had more injuries and bruises? Beating up a fourteen-year old kid is excessive.

Now, let me switch gears and go into the alleged facts narrated by the fact-finding committee through RGE. There are accounts from the mayor's side, but where are the accounts from the dela Paz's side? Is there a single statement or sentence there that presents an explanation by the dela Paz camp?

Bambee wrote the blog immediately after the incident. You actually think after that ordeal and traumatic experience, she was smart enough to be scheming to lie about things? If there is any weakness in Bambee's blog, it is that some details may have been omitted. But are you saying this girl is a liar or that her statements are untrue? On the contrary, there was a lot of time for the other side to make up their story. It is usually stronger evidence when the statement is made at a time nearer to the actual event - especially when Bambee has been consistent with her story all throughout in TV interviews and media.

If you look at page 5 where I posted the report of Nasser Jr.'s flightmate, the fact-finding report is a mirror image of that and Bambee's blog was totally disregarded.

This is clearly a whitewash and the report is full of holes. Normally, investigative groups who make whitewashes (and I am familiar with them) usually do a more prudent job in covering up the holes and inconsistencies. Not this group. They just took the mayor's story hook, line, and sinker.

Whitewashes and politicians always go together anyway. So I am not surprised.

a jungolfer parent who knows the delapaz dad told me that this daddy delapaz is really "MAANGAS". Can anyone explain What MAANGAS means?

I believe that the delapaz blogs and press releases were meant as a trial by publicity.

I will also most likely react violently if you poke me during a heated argument.

Again Delapaz really asked for more trouble when he callled for back-up.

Ikaw naman Mayor P. Bakit naman pati mga bata pinatulan ninyo

Bambee has been a blogger since forever, and if you check her blog you'll find links to entries she made starting 2007 but I know she has been blogging longer than that. Her latest blog entry was purely her own writing style and written while her dad and brother were still recuperating from the wounds and injuries. There was no way she could have been manipulated or was lying. I cannot find any inconsistencies in her blog whereas I can find a lot in the fact-finding reports.

On the contrary, I think these facts as presented by rge (if it indeed is truly Valley's version) cast a severe shadow on the credibility of Valley Golf. They have totally disregarded the dela Paz side, and lifted all their findings from the Pangandaman side.

But this is a natural reaction because the dela Paz camp and their supporters were not too pleased with how Valley handled the incident when it happened. So it put Valley in a bad light. The only way to "save" the image of the club is to paint a picture of the dela Paz camp as the aggressors which is incredulous and improbable. This will clearly backfire on Valley and the club will be in a bigger hole and have bigger image problems.

They allowed a brawl to happen in their backyard, not once but twice (in the course and in the clubhouse). They allowed armed bodyguards in the clubhouse which is against their rules. And they allowed the crime of child abuse to happen right before their very eyes. Now, they are coming up with these "findings of fact" which totally disregards the other side.

While I may have said that opinions may change as more facts come to light, this recent posting of the "findings of fact" has already cemented my opinion. My profession has trained me to read between the lines, find inconsistencies, and all these little things. There is little doubt in my mind now who is in the aggressor and the attacker here.

Back to where I was, the findings cast a shadow on itself to me. Bambee's blog is not a lie or a fabrication or untruthful. Not at all. There is no doubt in my mind now.

A responsible parent does not create trouble when his children are around, even when he is right.

I cannot count how many times I have been cut off on the road, bumped in the mall without as much as a sorry, and many countless incidents..... but if I am with my child and/or my wife I let it pass.

There are more important things in life than risking the life and limb of the ones you love.

I understand my friend Jick has a softspot for junior golfers but the father pf these juniorgolfers could have used the incident to set a good example for his kids. If they were overtaken/hit into etc, use the proper venues that are there. He apparently did but then he should have waited for the final outcome of the Marshall's action and if unsatisfied he should have brought it up to higher authorities in the club.

Apparently Mr. Dela Paz's reputation precedes him, this could just be a case of "nakahanap lang ng katapat". Unfortunately his stupidity lead to his children being exposed to unnecessary violence and trauma.

My thoughts as a parent who tries his best to be responsible.

To add, I agree that Bambee's blog doesn't seem like it is fabricated. However we must take into account they are the events as seen thru her eyes as things happened. Just as the Mayor's account is thru his eyes as they unfolded. Neither is the whole truth or should be taken as such.

Jick,

I understand that Bambee was on the fairway and probably didn't hear any of the discussions in the tee house leading up to the altercation. Her reactions and that of her brother's in defense their father is understandable. I also understand that in the heat of the moment, she probably didn't have all the facts and I doubt that her father illuminated her. Thus I understand the tone and the substance of her blog. But now we know that it was just one account of the incident which unfortunately excluded some of the facts.

I don't think Valley's credibility as to the investigation can be called into question.

None of us are/were there for the investigation. Unless we know for a fact that the DeLa Paz's were denied opportunities to present of clarify matters as facts were continually being uncovered, we should give them the benefit of having done their job to the best of their abilities.

I will say their handling of the incident on that day itself was terrible and they could have prevented the escalation of hostilities in the clubhouse by just being more prudent. For that they lost credibility.

It is Unfortunate for delapaz that he found his KATAPAT
A little self restraint from both parties could have prevented these incident.

For the love of the game let us pray that these incident serve as a lesson to all golfers

Maangas - mayabang; k*pal

i am inclined to believe in rge's post. Even bad people with bad records occasionally end up in the correct side of a conflict. Just too many witnesses to discredit.

Ok Jick. Apparently, your sentiments are more founded on what you'd like to believe rather than what has been obtained from the witnesses. The sarcasm of your comments obviously does little to belie your own sentiments. The comment regarding the poking by the umbrella is not founded on anything other than your vivid imagination. Just for your own enlightenment, the witness accounts were that Dela Paz poked Pangandaman while they were arguing and Pangandaman moved back. This was what Hussein saw and responded to. Just as DelaPaz was about to poke again, Hussein had already moved forward. Don't try to make it sound like it happened in a flash of an eye. You make yourself sound ridiculous and your bias shows.

By the way, I would be a little careful about being to self-righteous in casting blame at Valley and making it appear that they favor one party over another. You, who are not privy to what took place and to what extent the people worked to get all sides only for you to play armchair Jock. You best temper your accusations lest you find someone that may take true offense on what you say and be less than cordial to you. I suggest you dial down the hubris. Your youth and immaturity seem to be making an unwanted appearance. This would be a shame for a person in your profession. Last I checked, the "Open Mouth -Insert Foot" philosophy does not do well in serving one's case. I shall do you the courtesy of dissecting your comments and responding point by point so you don't have to figure out what I am pertaining to, ok? Stay posted.

correct ka dyan sir, pagalingan na lang ng witness accounts

I also have my sources who say that Mr. dela Paz has a strong personality which makes him come off as brash, outspoken, and opinionated.

But the more pressing issue is really the incident.

Who instigated it? I am not sold on the umbrella poking incident because how come it took so long for a second poke to happen if they were within point blank range of each other (dela Paz and the mayor)? Why did Hussein have to allegedly run and attack dela Paz?

Now, even assuming dela Paz started it (I'm still not sold he did), was the retaliation proper? Why was he not disarmed? Why was he beaten up in front of his two kids?

My point here is the excessive use of force when you have the numbers on your side. The personality of the dad could be something but when does that ever merit such a use of force or retaliation?

And assuming it was over in the golf course, why did the fistfight have to happen again in the veranda?

We should also all realize that a 14-year old kid was beaten up and bruised, not once but twice. Even if he has the worst dad in the world, no kid should be subjected to that treatment.

Finally, the lawyer in me says that both sides should be heard. It seems the report has totally disregarded the dela Paz side and I see too many inconsistencies in the report, the editor really did a bad job.

To me, good parenting and setting and example to the kids is another issue altogether which I don't really specialize on since I am not a parent. And I think that sidetracks from the main issue here which is really the brawl and the child abuse on the 14-year old kid and the apparent "cover-up" Valley is trying to do to wash their hands from wrongdoing.

Bambee has been a blogger since forever, and if you check her blog you'll find links to entries she made starting 2007 but I know she has been blogging longer than that. Her latest blog entry was purely her own writing style and written while her dad and brother were still recuperating from the wounds and injuries. There was no way she could have been manipulated or was lying. I cannot find any inconsistencies in her blog whereas I can find a lot in the fact-finding reports.

On the contrary, I think these facts as presented by rge (if it indeed is truly Valley's version) cast a severe shadow on the credibility of Valley Golf. They have totally disregarded the dela Paz side, and lifted all their findings from the Pangandaman side.

But this is a natural reaction because the dela Paz camp and their supporters were not too pleased with how Valley handled the incident when it happened. So it put Valley in a bad light. The only way to "save" the image of the club is to paint a picture of the dela Paz camp as the aggressors which is incredulous and improbable. This will clearly backfire on Valley and the club will be in a bigger hole and have bigger image problems.

They allowed a brawl to happen in their backyard, not once but twice (in the course and in the clubhouse). They allowed armed bodyguards in the clubhouse which is against their rules. And they allowed the crime of child abuse to happen right before their very eyes. Now, they are coming up with these "findings of fact" which totally disregards the other side.

While I may have said that opinions may change as more facts come to light, this recent posting of the "findings of fact" has already cemented my opinion. [b]My profession has trained me to read between the lines, find inconsistencies, and all these little things. There is little doubt in my mind now who is in the aggressor and the attacker here.

Back to where I was, the findings cast a shadow on itself to me. Bambee's blog is not a lie or a fabrication or untruthful. Not at all. There is no doubt in my mind now.[[/b]/quote]




Well it's a good thing, I'm not posting the finding solely for your enlightenment. Valley, as I said in my previous post is only stating its findings. If you say your profession has trained you in finding the facts, it obviously did not train you enough in being open to the very simple reality that there are always two sides to a story. Your choosing to believe one in its entirety brings your so-called "training" to question. I can understand you have a sweet spot for jungolfers but sorry, your jungolfer isn't the angel you might like to believe he is. There is more anecdotal evidence but of what use is this to one who has "cemented" his opinion?

Valley cares not whether it is put in bad light or not. It only cares that it represents the facts as they occurred. The members, like me, would like to get to the bottom of this. I could care less if the 2 parties sue one another or kiss and make up. What is more of an annoyance are your blanket insinuations that strike me us very unbecoming of someone in your profession.

Obviously I have stated my opinion because this is a message board. And of course opinion equates to bias. I am just stating my interpretation of the findings of fact you posted which I never ascribed to being yours.

But here are some observations from the report which I will summarize and even armchair observers can easily notice:

1. Not a single sentence has anything explanatory from the dela Paz's side. Was their side even taken at all? This I'd want to know.

2. The report is too similar to the one I myself posted on page 5 (in the dark red font) which was the account of one of the Pangandaman's flightmates. So even I posted word-for-word what the other side said and even highlighted it.

So this is leading me to an opinion that the report is biased. It's just my opinion, your mileage may vary just as we have different opinions on different golf equipment.

I think the actions taken by the politicians were excessive. I think they should have disarmed dela Paz if his umbrella was really a threat and they could have done that because they greatly outnumbered dela Paz. But that is my opinion. You may think it is normal human behavior, that is your opinion.

We were both not in the incident. We are both in constant contact with people who were first-hand witnesses in the incident. So we are in the same boat. In the end, it is only our conclusion and opinion that differs. So let it be.