The Supreme Court’s Third Division acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam, who was previously sentenced to one year in prison for violating the May 2019 election liquor ban in Iligan City.
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa wrote that prosecutors and police relied solely on circumstantial evidence of intoxication and two empty Tanduay rum bottles without proving consumption occurred during the prohibited period.
The High Court noted critical investigative omissions, including the lack of sobriety tests, chemical examinations, fingerprints on the bottles, or photo and video documentation.
APPEARING drunk during an election liquor ban was insufficient to sustain a man’s conviction after the Supreme Court (SC) found that prosecutors failed to prove he consumed alcohol within the prohibited period.
The Third Division, in its July 7, 2026 decision, acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam, who was arrested in Iligan City, Lanao del Norte on the eve of the May 2019 midterm elections and later sentenced to one year in prison.
The High Court’s ruling, written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, examined whether officers’ observations and two empty liquor bottles established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arrest and conviction
The case stemmed from a report received by Barangay Peacekeeping Action Team (BPAT) at 11:45 p.m. on May 12, 2019, concerning two men allegedly throwing stones at nearby homes in Barangay Maria Cristina.
Prosecution witnesses said the BPAT personnel found Omandam and Samson Natuil Tapere appearing intoxicated, saw two empty bottles of Tanduay rum nearby and sought police assistance.
Police arrested Omandam, who was reportedly too drunk to run. His breath reportedly smelled of alcohol and whose speech and movements appeared impaired. Tapere evaded arrest and fled.
Both men were charged with violating the election liquor ban, although the prosecution and defense agreed during pretrial proceedings that neither had been caught drinking.
An Iligan trial court convicted both men in January 2023, but the Court of Appeals acquitted Tapere a year later while upholding Omandam’s conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
What prosecutors had to prove
For the drinking offense charged against Omandam, the SC identified two essential elements: He consumed intoxicating liquor and the consumption occurred during the prohibited period.
Comelec Resolution 10461, which implemented the liquor ban for the 2019 elections, prohibited selling, furnishing, offering, buying, serving or consuming intoxicating liquor on May 12 and 13, 2019.
Prosecutors relied on signs of intoxication and the empty bottles to establish that Omandam drank during those prohibited days.
But the SC said the evidence as a whole still leaves room for the person to be innocent.
“In the case at bar, the Court finds that the sole reliance on circumstantial evidence was unwarranted; taken as a whole, the circumstances are not incompatible with innocence,” it said.
Gaps in the evidence
The High Court pointed to the absence of tests or documentation that could have supported the officers’ observations.
Police conducted no field sobriety test, breath analyzer examination or confirmatory chemical test. They also took no photographs or video of Omandam’s condition, the High Court noted.
Although officers seized and preserved the two empty bottles, investigators made no attempt to obtain fingerprints that could establish whether either accused had handled them.
The SC discussed alcohol-testing safeguards under the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013 as relevant methods of verification, although Omandam’s case involved an election offense.
According to the ruling, the alleged drinking occurred along a public roadside, with no indication of concealment or practical obstacle to obtaining direct or objective evidence.
“These omissions cannot be dismissed as mere procedural lapses. They reflect a marked departure from established standards designed to ensure accuracy and fairness in criminal investigation,” the SC said.
“The recognized parity between direct and circumstantial evidence does not authorize the abandonment of objective proof where the same is plainly obtainable,” it added.
Standard for conviction
Circumstantial evidence can support a conviction even when no witness sees the crime, the SC said.
Such evidence consists of proven facts from which a court draws a conclusion about what happened, but the combined circumstances must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
For this type of evidence to suffice, there must be more than one circumstance, the underlying facts must be proven and those facts must collectively exclude reasonable explanations consistent with innocence.
In Omandam’s case, the court found that the evidence failed that final requirement, particularly when weighed against the unexplained absence of objective verification.
“The evidence fails to constitute that coherent chain of circumstances required to engender moral certainty and instead discloses a fragile web of assumptions unsupported by objective verification,” the court said.
The acquittal did not invalidate the liquor ban or establish that every prosecution requires an eyewitness, but it underscored the need to prove the charged act within the prohibited period.
“The Constitution demands more before liberty may be curtailed and criminal liability imposed,” the SC said.
The SC reversed the appellate court’s rulings against Omandam, ordered the return of any cash bond he had paid and directed the immediate issuance of an entry of judgment. / KAL