The Supreme Court has ruled that appearing intoxicated, smelling of alcohol and being found near empty liquor bottles are not enough to convict a person of violating the election liquor ban.
The SC said circumstantial evidence may support a conviction, but the circumstances presented by the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and leave no reasonable explanation consistent with innocence.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam after finding that prosecutors failed to prove that he actually consumed alcohol during the period covered by the election liquor ban.
Omandam was arrested on the eve of the elections after police responded to reports of rowdiness.
The arresting officers said Omandam appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice and moved groggily.
Police also recovered two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum near the area.
However, none of the officers testified that they actually saw Omandam drinking alcohol.
The prosecution therefore relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that he violated Section 261(dd)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits the taking of intoxicating liquor during the election ban period.
The SC said this was not enough.
It explained that while circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt, the circumstances must form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused committed the offense and must exclude any reasonable explanation of innocence.
In Omandam’s case, the SC found that the prosecution relied mainly on observations of his appearance and other circumstances that were not independently verified.
It also pointed to several investigative steps that could have strengthened the prosecution’s case but were not undertaken by police.
The officers did not conduct a field sobriety test, breath analysis or chemical examination to determine whether Omandam was intoxicated.
They also did not take photographs or videos documenting his alleged condition.
The two empty liquor bottles recovered near the scene were likewise not subjected to fingerprint or other forensic examination to determine whether Omandam had handled them.
The court said the offense could have been readily verified through available means and was not one that necessarily had to be proven solely through observations of an accused’s appearance.
The SC said the failure to conduct those tests and document the circumstances undermined the accuracy and fairness of the investigation.
The SC stressed that the election liquor ban prohibits the actual taking of intoxicating liquor during the prohibited period.
Thus, proof that a person appeared drunk or was near empty liquor bottles does not, by itself, establish that the person consumed alcohol during the ban.
With the prosecution failing to prove that essential element beyond reasonable doubt, the Third Division acquitted Omandam.#