The Supreme Court has acquitted Mcgill Esquillo Omandam of violating the COMELEC liquor ban, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision that had affirmed his conviction.
The Case
On October 14, 2019, Omandam and his co-accused Samson Natuil Tapere were charged with violating COMELEC Resolution No. 10461, in relation to Section 261(dd)(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code. The Information alleged that on or about May 12, 2019, in the City of Iligan, the two willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously drank or took intoxicating liquor on the street the day before the election period from January 13, 2019 to June 12, 2019.
Both pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among others, that the arrested accused were not caught in the act of drinking liquor.
The prosecution presented PCpl. Danrie Dumaog Oberez and Barangay Peacemaking Action Team (BPAT) member Ronnie C. Yongco. On May 12, 2019, at around 11:45 in the evening, BPAT members of Brgy. Maria Cristina, Iligan City were told by a barangay kagawad about two intoxicated men hurling stones at neighboring residences. The BPAT members proceeded to the location and saw Omandam and Tapere, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, along with two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum. The BPAT then requested police assistance.
When the police arrived, Tapere fled and evaded arrest. Omandam, described as too intoxicated to run, was caught. PCpl. Oberez and Yongco observed that his breath smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his movements were groggy. PCpl. Oberez seized the two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum, which were preserved at the police station.
The defense presented its lone witness, Tapere, who denied the allegations and said he was home with his family that night. The defense did not present Omandam.
The RTC found both guilty and imposed a straight penalty of one year imprisonment. On appeal, the CA partly granted the appeal, acquitting Tapere but affirming Omandam's conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
The Issue
The question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish Omandam's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating the COMELEC liquor ban.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. Its disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 22, 2024 and the Resolution dated July 10, 2024 of the Court of Appeals - Cagayan de Oro City, Twenty-Third Division in CA-G.R. CR No. 02389-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mcgill Esquillo Omandam is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 261 (dd)( 1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 10461, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any amount paid by way of cash bond is ordered RETURNED."
The Court also ordered that entry of judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 275788
- Charged: October 14, 2019
- Alleged offense: on or about May 12, 2019
- Election period: January 13, 2019 to June 12, 2019
- Elections: May 13, 2019 general elections
- Time of incident: around 11:45 in the evening
- Two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum recovered
- RTC Decision: January 27, 2023, one year imprisonment
- CA Decision: January 22, 2024; CA Resolution: July 10, 2024
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that PCpl. Oberez did not conduct any field sobriety test, administer any breath analyzer examination, or secure any confirmatory chemical test. The Court also pointed to the absence of even the most rudimentary forms of documentation, such as photographs or video recording of Omandam's purported condition at the time of arrest.
Despite recovering, preserving, and presenting the two empty bottles of Tanduay Rhum, the authorities failed to subject them to forensic examination. No effort was made to lift latent fingerprints and compare them with those of Omandam or Tapere, which the Court said could have provided independent corroboration on whether either had handled the bottles.
Citing People v. Sartagoda, the Court observed that testimonial evidence, unlike object or forensic evidence, is susceptible to human error, whether intentional or unintentional, and recognized the evidentiary significance of fingerprint examination.
The Court found that these omissions reflected a marked departure from established standards designed to ensure accuracy and fairness in criminal investigation, particularly in ascertaining intoxication. It held that circumstantial evidence as a sole basis for conviction finds justification in necessity, not convenience or inadequacy of law enforcement, especially where the offense was simple and readily susceptible of direct or objective proof.
The Court concluded that the evidence failed to constitute a coherent chain of circumstances required to engender moral certainty, disclosing instead a fragile web of assumptions unsupported by objective verification. It stressed that the Constitution demands more before liberty may be curtailed.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 275788.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.