On January 13, 2025, Atty. Raymond Fortun, counsel for filmmaker Darryl Yap, arrived at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court to file two crucial motions: a Motion for Immediate Consolidation and a Motion to Cancel the January 15 hearing. These actions are directly related to the cyber libel complaint filed by veteran actor and television host Vic Sotto against Yap.
The dispute arises from Yap’s upcoming film, The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, which revisits controversial allegations made by the late actress Pepsi Paloma in the 1980s. Paloma had accused Sotto and his colleagues of assault in a high-profile case that was eventually dismissed. Sotto alleges that the film’s promotional materials are defamatory, prompting him to file 19 counts of cyber libel against Yap, seeking ₱35 million in damages.
In addition to the libel cases, Sotto obtained a writ of habeas data from the Muntinlupa RTC. The court order temporarily prohibits the dissemination of promotional materials for the film until a decision is reached. A summary hearing on the matter was originally set for January 15, prompting Yap’s legal team to request its postponement pending the resolution of the Motion for Immediate Consolidation.
Atty. Fortun stated that the consolidation of the cyber libel cases and the habeas data petition is essential for efficiency and consistency in the proceedings. He argued that the promotional materials in question are rooted in documented historical events and are not designed to malign Sotto. Fortun added that the film intends to honor the memory of Pepsi Paloma on the 40th anniversary of her death.
Fortun further emphasized that Sotto, as a public figure, must meet the legal threshold of proving actual malice in his libel claims. Yap’s camp asserts that their work is protected by freedom of speech and artistic expression, contending that the film addresses a historical narrative rather than personal defamation.
As the case progresses, the court’s rulings on the consolidation motion and the scheduling of the January 15 hearing will be pivotal. The case exemplifies the delicate balance between artistic freedom and the rights of individuals to safeguard their reputations in the digital age.
This legal battle continues to attract public attention, highlighting the enduring debate over freedom of expression and the responsibilities that come with storytelling.