G.R. No. 100125 May 12, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO MAGALONG Y BUADO, EDUARDO LIM alias “Pilay,” and ARSENIO AQUINO Y GONZALES, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Romeo Magalong, Eduardo Lim, and Arsenio Aquino were charged with the rape and killing of seven-year-old Cecilia Arabis. The prosecution lacked eyewitnesses, leading to Aquino’s discharge to become a state witness. Aquino testified that on November 17, 1987, the victim entered his house looking for her mother. Magalong and Lim, who were present, were under the influence of marijuana. Magalong ordered Aquino to bring Cecilia to a room and choke her. When Aquino hesitated, Lim pushed him aside and strangled the child himself. Magalong then attempted to rape Cecilia and, to silence her screams, pressed a shirt against her mouth, causing her death. Magalong and Lim subsequently dumped the body in a canal. The defense of Magalong was alibi, while Lim filed a demurrer to evidence.
The trial court convicted Magalong as a principal and Lim as an accomplice in the crime of rape with homicide, sentencing both to “reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment)” and ordering indemnity. Both accused appealed, with Magalong challenging Aquino’s credibility due to inconsistencies between his sworn statement and testimony, and Lim arguing that no evidence implicated him.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the conviction of Magalong and Lim, based primarily on the testimony of discharged co-accused Arsenio Aquino, is valid despite alleged inconsistencies and the lack of other direct evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the trial court’s ruling. The testimony of state witness Aquino was deemed credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that minor inconsistencies between a sworn statement and court testimony do not necessarily discredit a witness, as affidavits are often incomplete. Aquino’s detailed account was consistent on material points: Magalong initiated and perpetrated the sexual assault and killing, while Lim actively participated by strangling the victim. This active participation made Lim a principal by direct participation under Article 17(1) of the Revised Penal Code, not merely an accomplice. Therefore, both were correctly found guilty as principals of the complex crime of rape with homicide.
The Court also corrected the penalty imposed, clarifying that “reclusion perpetua” is a distinct, definite penalty with accessory consequences and is not synonymous with “life imprisonment.” The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision was modified to reflect that both appellants are principals sentenced to reclusion perpetua.