MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that appearing intoxicated, by itself, is insufficient to prove a violation of the election liquor ban.

The high tribunal made this remark on Tuesday as it released a ruling of the Third Division, acquitting Mcgill Esquillo Omandam who was convicted of violating the liquor ban during the 2019 elections.

Police arrested Omandam on the eve of the elections after responding 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 liquor bottles near the scene.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Omandam guilty.

The SC decision, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Omandam consumed alcohol during the prohibited period.

The high court noted that the prosecution relied heavily on the arresting officer’s claim that the accused acted groggily and spoke with slurred speech but “did not conduct any field sobriety test, administer any breath analyzer examination, or secure any confirmatory chemical test.”

“Equally telling is the absence of even the most rudimentary forms of documentation— no photographs, no video recording,” the court said.

The SC also said that 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 investigation’s accuracy and fairness. Taken together, they cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.

“The Constitution demands more before liberty may be curtailed and criminal liability imposed. To affirm a conviction on such frail grounds would not only erode the presumption of innocence but would likewise sanction a standard of proof far beneath that required in criminal prosecutions—a result which the Court cannot and will not countenance,” the SC said. (PNA)