By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of violating the election liquor ban during the 2019 polls, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually consumed alcohol during the prohibited period.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Supreme Court Third Division granted the petition of Mcgill Esquillo Omandam and overturned his conviction for violating Section 261(dd)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits the taking of intoxicating liquor during the election period covered by the liquor ban.
Omandam was arrested on the eve of the 2019 elections after police responded to reports of rowdiness.
The arresting officers claimed that he appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice and moved groggily. Two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum were also recovered near the scene.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Omandam guilty.
The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.
The Court emphasized that the election liquor ban penalizes the actual taking or consumption of intoxicating liquor during the prohibited period, which covers the day before the election and election day.
The prosecution therefore had to establish that Omandam actually consumed alcohol within that period.
It failed to do so.
None of the arresting officers testified that they actually saw Omandam drinking. Instead, the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including his appearance, behavior and the presence of empty liquor bottles.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that circumstantial evidence can support a conviction. But it stressed that the circumstances, taken together, must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and must exclude any reasonable explanation consistent with innocence.
The Court found that standard was not met.
The police did not subject Omandam to readily available means of verifying alleged intoxication, such as a field sobriety test, breath analyzer or chemical examination. Neither did they take photographs or videos documenting his alleged condition.
The two empty liquor bottles likewise failed to establish that Omandam had consumed their contents.
The police did not examine the bottles for fingerprints or conduct forensic tests to determine whether Omandam had handled them.
For the Supreme Court, these investigative omissions were significant.
The offense was not one ordinarily committed in secrecy, and the alleged intoxication could have been objectively verified through available testing and documentation.
Instead, the prosecution relied on observations and circumstances that, without further verification, left substantial doubt as to whether Omandam had actually consumed alcohol during the ban.
The Court said these shortcomings undermined the accuracy and fairness of the investigation and weakened the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence presented against him.
The ruling reaffirmed that the constitutional presumption of innocence cannot be displaced by suspicion, appearances or incomplete investigative work.
As the Court stressed:
“The Constitution demands more before liberty may be curtailed and criminal liability imposed.”
To uphold Omandam’s conviction on what the Court described as frail evidence, it said, would erode the presumption of innocence and impose a standard of proof below that required in criminal prosecutions.
The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower courts and acquitted Omandam.
ia/xf
