The Supreme Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of violating the election liquor ban, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually consumed alcohol during the prohibited period.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa and dated 7 July 2026, the SC Third Division granted the petition of Mcgill Esquillo Omandam and reversed his conviction for violating Section 261(dd)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits the consumption of intoxicating liquor during the election period.

Omandam was arrested on the eve of the 2019 elections after police responded to reports of rowdiness.

Police officers said Omandam appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, spoke with a slurred voice and moved groggily. They also recovered two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum near the scene.

The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals found him guilty, but the SC disagreed.

The high court said the liquor ban covers the day before an election and election day, and that the prosecution must establish that the accused actually consumed alcohol during the prohibited period.

In Omandam’s case, however, none of the arresting officers saw him drinking.

The prosecution instead relied on circumstantial evidence, including the officers’ observations of his condition and the presence of empty liquor bottles.

The SC said circumstantial evidence may support a conviction, but the circumstances taken together must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and exclude any reasonable explanation consistent with innocence.

The court found that the prosecution failed to meet that standard.

It noted that Omandam’s alleged intoxication could have been objectively verified through readily available means, such as a field sobriety test, breath analyzer or chemical examination.

The police conducted none of these tests and did not take photographs or videos to document Omandam’s alleged intoxication.

The two empty liquor bottles recovered at the scene were also not examined for fingerprints or subjected to forensic testing to determine whether Omandam had handled them.

The SC said these investigative omissions undermined the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence against Omandam and raised doubts about the accuracy and fairness of the investigation.

As a result, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.