17/09/2026
Hindi sapat na sabihing โmukhang lasingโ โyou need to prove it with the quantum of evidence required to convict an accused in criminal cases.๐
The (SC) has ruled that appearing intoxicated, smelling of alcohol, or being found near empty liquor bottles is not, by itself, enough to establish a violation of the election liquor ban.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SCโs Third Division acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam (Omandam), ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he consumed alcohol during the prohibited period as stated under Section 261(dd)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), or the โCOMELEC liquor ban.โ
Omandam was arrested on the eve of the elections after police responded to reports of rowdiness. Arresting officers said he appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice, and moved groggily. The police also recovered two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum near the scene.
The SC explained that the OEC prohibits the taking of intoxicating liquor during the election liquor ban, which covers the day before the election and election day. The prosecution has to prove that the accused actually consumed alcohol during that period.
In this case, however, none of the arresting officers saw Omandam drinking. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence.
While circumstantial evidence may support a conviction, the SC stressed that the circumstances taken together must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and rule out any reasonable explanation of innocence.
The SC found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard. It based its case solely on observations of Omandamโs appearance and other unsupported circumstances.
The SC noted that the offense is not typically committed in secret and could have been easily verified through readily available means, such as field sobriety, breath analyzer, or chemical tests. However, the police did not conduct any of these, nor did they take photographs or videos to document Omandamโs alleged intoxication.
Although two empty liquor bottles were recovered, the police did not examine them for fingerprints or conduct forensic tests to determine whether Omandam handled them.
The SC ruled that these omissions undermined the accuracy and fairness of the investigation. Taken together, they cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.
Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173139
Read the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173133
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution