MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of violating the election liquor ban, ruling that signs of intoxication and other circumstantial evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he drank alcohol during the prohibited period.
In a 14-page decision promulgated July 7 and made public Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s Third Division granted the petition of Mcgill Esquillo Omandam and reversed his conviction under the Omnibus Election Code.
Police arrested Omandam on the eve of the 2019 elections after receiving reports about his rowdiness. Arresting officers said he appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice and moved groggily.
Police also recovered two empty alcohol bottles near the scene.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals later found Omandam guilty of violating the election liquor ban.
The Supreme Court, however, said prosecutors failed to establish that Omandam consumed alcohol during the period covered by the ban.
The court noted that none of the arresting officers saw Omandam drinking. Police also did not use field sobriety tests, a breath analyzer or chemical testing to establish alcohol consumption.
Investigators also failed to take photographs or videos of Omandam’s alleged intoxication, conduct forensic tests or determine whether he handled the recovered bottles.
The court said those investigative gaps affected the accuracy and fairness of the case and weakened the reliability of the circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court said circumstantial evidence can support a conviction, but prosecutors must establish a set of circumstances that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt and eliminates reasonable explanations for innocence.
The court also emphasized that the Constitution requires a higher standard of proof before authorities can impose criminal liability and restrict a person’s liberty.
The ruling effectively acquitted Omandam after the high court found the evidence insufficient to sustain his conviction.