Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that visible intoxication alone does not constitute sufficient evidence to convict someone of violating the election liquor ban. This decision was highlighted in a recent ruling where the SC acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam, who was previously found guilty of such a violation during the 2019 elections.

According to Philippines News Agency, Omandam was apprehended by police on the eve of the elections after receiving reports of rowdy behavior. The arresting officers noted that Omandam appeared intoxicated, had an alcohol odor, slurred speech, and moved unsteadily. They also recovered two empty liquor bottles near the location of the incident. Despite these observations, the SC found that the prosecution did not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Omandam consumed alcohol during the prohibited period.

The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the prosecution's over-reliance on the arresting officer's claims without conducting any field sobriety tests, breath analyzer examinations, or confirmatory chemical tests. The court emphasized the lack of basic documentation such as photographs or video recordings to support the officer's claims.

Furthermore, the SC noted that while two empty liquor bottles were found, no efforts were made to examine them for fingerprints or conduct forensic tests to link them to Omandam. The court ruled that these investigative oversights compromised the fairness and accuracy of the investigation, casting doubt on the reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented.

The SC emphasized that the Constitution requires more substantial evidence before curtailing an individual's liberty or imposing criminal liability. Upholding a conviction on such insufficient grounds would undermine the presumption of innocence and lower the standard of proof required in criminal cases, a situation the SC stated it could not endorse.