Rhed Bustamante as Pepsi Paloma; Darryl Yap. Image: Facebook/Darryl Yap
The distributor of the controversial movie “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” Pinoyflix Films and Entertainment Production, said it will process the requirements requested by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) so that it can be given a playdate.
The MTRCB requested the company to provide a Certificate or Clearance of No Pending Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Case from the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the City Prosecutor, before the board could proceed with the review of the film.
President Jose Olinares said he would ask to reschedule the movie’s Feb. 5 playdate if needed.
“Magre-request po kami ng certification or clearance from RTC of Muntinlupa and also to Prosecutors Office Muntinlupa and DOJ, but since Feb. 5 na ang playdate, hindi pa namin alam kung aabot kami sa pagkuha ng mga requirements,” Olinares told INQUIRER.net when sought for comment.
“If hindi kami aabot, we will ask the producer of the film na i-reschedule ang playdate ng pelikula,” he added, stating PRODMO PRODUCTIONS INC as the producer of the movie.
Yap faces 19 counts of cyberlibel filed by actor-TV host Vic Sotto, whose name was mentioned in the director’s film teaser as an alleged rapist of Paloma. The complaint remains pending before the prosecutor’s office of Muntinlupa.
Aside from cyberlibel, Sotto also filed a petition for the writ of habeas data before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court. Sotto’s petition was subsequently partially granted by the court, wherein Yap was ordered to take down the film’s teaser, altho he was allowed to proceed with production and release of the movie.
Both the Sotto and Yap camps have said they will not appeal the ruling of the court.
However, the MTRCB had required the producers of the movie to submit proof that there is no pending criminal, civil, or administration litigation involving the showing of the movie, before it could proceed with its review to ensure that the sub judice rule is not violated.