SC: Looking drunk not enough for poll liquor ban conviction

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed that appearing to be intoxicated, among other circumstantial evidence, is not enough to convict someone for violating the election liquor ban.

In a 14-page decision promulgated on July 7, 2026, and made public on Tuesday, the SC’s Third Division acquitted petitioner Mcgill Esquillo Omandam, who had been convicted for his supposed violation of the Omnibus Election Code, or the “Comelec liquor ban.”

READ: SC: Affidavit of desistance cannot be used vs trafficking case

Article continues after this advertisement

Omandam was apprehended by police officers on the eve of the 2019 elections following reports of his rowdiness.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The arresting police officers said Omandam “appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice, and moved groggily.”

Two empty bottles of alcohol were also recovered near the scene.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Omandam guilty of violating the election liquor ban.

Meanwhile, the SC reversed Omandam’s conviction and granted his petition, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he consumed alcohol during the liquor ban, which covers the day before the elections.

Article continues after this advertisement

According to the high tribunal, the prosecution relied solely on “circumstantial evidence,” such as observations of Omandam’s appearance, but none of the arresting officers caught him in the act of drinking during the prohibited period.

The SC also said the police officers did not verify through readily available means, such as field sobriety, breath analyzer, or chemical tests, to use as evidence against Omandam.

Article continues after this advertisement

The court added that the police did not take photographs or videos to document Omandam’s alleged intoxication, nor did they conduct forensic tests and examine if he actually handled the recovered empty liquor bottles.

The SC ruled that “these omissions undermined the investigation’s accuracy and fairness,” adding that “taken together, they cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.”

The court pointed out that while circumstantial evidence may support an individual’s conviction, “the circumstances taken together must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and rule out any reasonable explanation of innocence.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“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,” said the SC. /mr