Filmmaker Darryl Yap entered a not guilty plea on Tuesday, June 3, in response to the cyberlibel charges filed by veteran actor-host Vic Sotto. The arraignment took place at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 203, according to Yap’s legal counsel, Atty. Raymond Furtun.
The case revolves around a controversial teaser from Yap’s film The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, The teaser included a scene where the character played by Gina Alajar, portraying Charito Solis, asked the lead character portraying Pepsi Paloma whether she had been raped by Vic Sotto. The character responded with a direct “yes.”
This portrayal prompted strong reactions from the camp of Vic Sotto, who has consistently denied the rape allegations that have long circulated the 1982 Pepsi Paloma case involving Sotto and fellow comedians Joey de Leon and Richie D’Horsie. No charges were filed back then, and the issue had largely faded from public discussion until the teaser reignited it.
Sotto responded by filing a formal complaint, leading to Yap being charged under Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in connection with the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The cyberlibel charge reflects the modern application of traditional libel laws to online content.
Atty. Furtun emphasized that Yap is prepared to face the legal process and defend the artistic direction of his work, which he asserts is part of a broader commentary on censorship, media, and justice. “We maintain that Mr. Yap’s film does not intend to defame, but to explore historical controversies through dramatization,” Furtun said.
The court scheduled the next hearing for August 19, also a Tuesday, where both sides are expected to present evidence and witnesses.
The case has sparked renewed debate online, with some defending Yap’s freedom of artistic expression and others backing Sotto’s stand against what he sees as defamatory content.
As the legal proceedings move forward, the film’s release remains uncertain, and both camps have expressed willingness to take the case to higher courts if necessary. Public interest in the case continues to grow, reflecting ongoing tensions between creative freedom and individual reputations in the digital age.