Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

spot_img

Maris Racal interacts with supporters of her MMFF movie

Maris Racal takes photos with fans who supported her MMFF movie “And The Breadwinner Is…” Image: Instagram/@kbracal Maris Racal personally...
HomeEntertainmentDarryl Yap reiterates Pepsi Paloma film’s February release

Darryl Yap reiterates Pepsi Paloma film’s February release

Rhed Bustamante portrays Pepsi Paloma; Darryl Yap. Image: Facebook/Darryl Yap

Amid the ongoing legal battle that involves the Pepsi Paloma movie, director Darryl Yap announced that the project will still premiere in Philippine theaters this coming February.

Through his Facebook page on Friday, Jan. 17, the director shared a screenshot of the late sexy actress’ name which supposedly ranked second on the list of “trending actors” on a search engine.

“THE RAPISTS OF PEPSI PALOMA. THIS FEBRUARY PH CINEMAS,” he said in the caption, which is consistent with the earlier announced release date.

Interestingly, just hours prior to Yap’s most recent post, he and TV host Vic Sotto met in court for the first time for the hearing of the latter’s petition for the writ of habeas data. Sotto’s petition seeks to remove any information about him used in the promotion of the director’s upcoming film.

Both camps did not disclose any information on the case after the hearing, given that the court earlier issued a gag order on them. However, Yap made a brief remark, saying he was “okay” and “finishing the movie.”

Aside from the habeas data case, Sotto also separately filed 19 counts of cyber libel against Yap, after the former’s name was mentioned as one of the alleged rapists of the late sexy actress in the filmmaker’s movie teaser.

Yap’s camp was the one who filed the motion for the issuance of a gag order, stressing that the film in question has yet to be released, hence discussing it in public could affect the project.

The filmmaker also filed a motion seeking to consolidate the habeas data civil case and the cyber libel complaint, which is still pending before the prosecutors.

The motion to consolidate, however, was rejected by the court as it noted that the “two legal actions are inherently distinct in nature, purpose, jurisdiction, and procedure.”