Vic Sotto, one of the Philippines’ most beloved actors and TV hosts, took legal action against filmmaker Darryl Yap on Thursday, January 9, filing multiple counts of cyberlibel stemming from allegations suggested by the trailer of Yap's controversial film, 'The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma.' The complaint was filed at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, with Sotto seeking moral damages amounting to P20 million and exemplary damages of P15 million.
Sotto, accompanied by his wife Pauleen Luna, addressed reporters as they arrived at the court to lodge the complaint. His legal representative, Enrique Dela Cruz, detailed how Yap’s posts and the teaser for the upcoming film connected Sotto's name to the long-ago alleged crimes against the late actress, Pepsi Paloma.
The trailer features dialogue where Paloma is asked if she was raped by Sotto, to which she supposedly responded affirmatively. Sotto's legal team emphasized the severity of the situation, claiming it unfairly maligns his reputation. "Nineteen times po na nagpahayag o nagpost na mapanirang imputation ‘yung respondent," Dela Cruz said, underscoring the repeated nature of Yap’s statements.
Upon filing the complaint, Sotto stated, "I just trust in our justice system. I’m against irresponsible people, especially on social media." He emphasized his lack of personal vendetta against Yap, focusing instead on the broader implications of citing such serious allegations without basis.
The tension escalated when Sotto expressed fears for his family's safety, citing threats received online as reactions to the film's promotion. "I felt unsafe and afraid since I read comments from strangers threatening to rape my wife and my minor child," he mentioned in his judicial affidavit. He also noted concerns about his privacy, stating, "This rape accusation is NOT TRUE and the dissemination of this wrong information is fooling a lot of people." Sotto's affidavit included screenshots of online threats and claimed the allegations against him were based on misinformation.
dSotto aimed to clarify the historical aspects of the case, asserting, "The case was dismissed. It was widely known.” He attempted to produce material confirming the dismissal of the prior case against him and other notable figures which dated back to 1982—a case aimed at highlighting the tumultuous backdrop against which Paloma’s accusations originally rose.
Yap, on the other hand, seems unperturbed by the legal move. After Sotto filed his complaint, he addressed the situation on social media, noting, "Kalayaan ng kahit sino ang magsampa ng reklamo, walang may monopolyo sa katarungan, lalo na sa katotohanan." He asserted the freedom to file complaints, insisting on the value of clarity and truth over conjecture.
Adding layers to the controversy, Coca Nicolas, one of Pepsi Paloma’s friends, previously disclosed during interviews, "The rape case filed by Pepsi against Vic, Joey de Leon, and Richie D'Horsie was just a gimmick to make her and Pepsi popular." Nicolas's revelations raised questions about the motivations behind such serious allegations years ago, complicity stemming from the media's coverage of the dramatic events.
The Muntinlupa RTC also took steps against Yap, issuing a writ of habeas data. The court ordered him to cease public promotion of the film, signaling the serious nature of the case and its potential legal repercussions.
Sotto’s stance not only seeks accountability for his allegations but also pushes against the rampant irresponsibility sometimes prevalent on social media. “I’m just against irresponsible people, especially on social media,” he reiterated, indicating broader concerns about the impact such misinformation could have on individuals’ lives, especially when it involves such sensitive topics.
Despite the gravity of the accusations, the film 'The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma' aims to recount the harrowing story of Pepsi Paloma, who, at just 18, faced tragic circumstances following her allegations against well-known comedians of the era. The film is set to revisit not only the allegations but also the circumstances surrounding her untimely death.
This case marks another episode within the Filipino film and media industry, highlighting the tensions between artistic expression and personal reputation. Whether it serves as a cautionary tale or ignites fervent discussions about responsibility on digital platforms remains to be seen. Nevertheless, as legal proceedings begin, both Sotto and Yap seem entrenched on their respective paths, ready to engage with the broader conversation around truth, justice, and the enduring impact of historical narratives on the present.