Filmmaker Darryl Yap formally entered a not guilty plea on June 3 in response to two counts of cyberlibel filed by veteran actor and comedian Vic Sotto.
The case centers on a teaser for Yap’s upcoming film The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, which Sotto claims implies his involvement in the controversial 1982 rape case of the late teen actress.
The arraignment took place at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 203, where Yap was represented by his legal counsel, Atty. Raymond Fortun. The court had previously issued an arrest warrant against Yap back in March, but it was recalled after he posted bail totaling ₱20,000—₱10,000 for each charge.
What sparked the charges?
The controversy stems from a dramatized teaser scene posted online, showing actors Gina Alajar and Rhed Bustamante in a dialogue that Sotto believes strongly points to him as one of the perpetrators of Paloma’s alleged assault.
Although the film itself has not yet been released, the teaser triggered enough alarm for Sotto to pursue legal action earlier this year, filing 19 counts of cyberlibel against Yap in January 2025.
Sotto’s camp also successfully secured a writ of habeas data, a legal remedy used to protect one’s right to privacy. The court ordered the censorship of specific portions of the teaser and required Yap to submit a sworn response. However, the court did not block the production or release of the film itself.
What happens next?
Yap’s defense lawyer, Atty. Fortun, expressed openness to a possible settlement, highlighting the role of the upcoming mediation process. “There’s always room for parties to reconcile,” he said following the arraignment. A mandatory mediation conference is scheduled before the court hearing resumes on August 19.
However, Sotto’s lawyer, Atty. Enrique Dela Cruz, stated that his client is currently leaning toward moving forward with the trial. As of now, there has been no formal discussion about an out-of-court resolution from their side.
What’s at stake?
This case marks one of the most high-profile intersections between entertainment and Philippine cybercrime law in recent years. It raises key questions about artistic freedom, digital speech, and the legal limits of public commentary on unresolved historical controversies.
While The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma has yet to be screened publicly, its promotional materials have already reignited long-standing debates around the 1982 case, which remains one of the most sensitive stories in Philippine showbiz history.
Whether the court rules in favor of defamation or artistic license will likely influence how future films and creators approach real-life scandals.
For now, all eyes are on the next court date in August, as the legal battle between one of the country’s most polarizing directors and a comedy icon plays out.
