(From left) Darryl Yap and Vic Sotto. Images: Facebook/Darryl Yap, Instagram/@pauleenlunasotto
The legal counsel of Darryl Yap said Vic Sotto was given a copy of the script of the director-screenwriter’s upcoming movie “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” contrary to the actor-host’s claims of the filmmaker that they failed to get his side of the matter.
Atty. Raymond Fortun told INQUIRER.net that Yap sent Sotto a copy of the script of the biopic on the late sexy star Pepsi Paloma before the movie production took place sometime before Christmas.
Paloma, whose real name is Delia Dueñas Smith, was one of the popular softdrinks beauties in the 1980s along with Sarsi Emmanuelle and Coca Nicolas. She started her showbiz career in the 1981 film “Brown Emanuelle” and went on to appear in several provocative works until her death.
“Direk Yap had given a copy of his script to an intermediary who I will decline to name at this time. He (Yap) had given clearance for the script to be given to one of the Sotto siblings. He (Yap) agreed to this for transparency, and ‘baka meron silang (Sotto) gusto idagdag (maybe they wanted to add something),’” he said.
Fortun added that the script was given to a particular “Sotto sibling who’s a senator,” apparently referring to reelectionist Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III. Yap’s lawyer said while an “intermediary” acknowledged that it had arrived, there was allegedly no feedback from the Sottos’ end.
“Direk Yap was told that the script had been given to the Sotto sibling (Tito). There was no feedback, even as he followed up twice. Script was given to the intermediary before Christmas. Follow-ups [were] made before Christmas. Shooting was during the Christmas,” he said.
INQUIRER.net has sought the comment of former Senator Tito Sotto, as well as of Atty. Enrique dela Cruz, counsel of Vic Sotto, but has received no reply yet from them as of posting.
‘Nothing libelous in Pepsi Paloma movie teaser’
Fortun also confirmed that they received a copy of Sotto’s complaint and will respond within five days. Touching on the veteran actor-comedian’s remark of him being against “irresponsible people on social media,” he reiterated that the director-screenwriter knows his rights.
“Direk Yap is not an irresponsible person. He knows what are his rights under our Constitution. There is nothing libelous about the teaser or any of the materials he has posted on social media. One of the statutory defenses against libel is the truth, and it is indisputable that Pepsi Paloma had executed a sworn statement and filed a complaint-affidavit for having been a victim of rape,” he said.
“On the matter of the petition for a writ of habeas data, we will present compelling legal arguments on why the writ should be quashed and the case dismissed,” he further added.
Pepsi Paloma’s 40th death anniversary
When asked the purpose behind the movie, Fortun said it was meant to commemorate the 40th death anniversary of Paloma, adding his client’s previous claims that he has no “personal ill will against the petitioner.”
“Direk Yap made this movie because 2025 is the 40th Anniversary of the death of Pepsi Paloma, his kababayan in Olongapo. He has no personal ill will against the petitioner; they have never met, nor even exchanged pleasantries,” he said. “Considering that the petitioner is a public figure, he must prove that Direk Yap was motivated by actual malice; he will fail to prove this.”
On Sotto’s claim that Yap had framed the trailer to sensationalize his movie and to identify the actor-host as the culprit behind Paloma’s alleged rape, Fortun said: “We havent discussed this. But from what I know, the title is central to the movie. Sino ang mga rapist ni Pepsi Paloma? It will be answered in the movie.”
The movie title wouldn’t be changed, as clarified by Yap on his Facebook page on Sunday, January 12. He also clarified that it was named “Pepsi Paloma” in other locations due to the sensitive nature of its title.
“Hindi po binago ang title ng ang ‘The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma.’ Meron lamang pong mga sinehan sa bansa ang nagpauna nang nagsabing hindi sila maaaring magpaskil ng salitang rapists kaya ang makikita lang sa kanila ay Pepsi Paloma… ang pelikula po, mabawasan man o madagdagan ng salita o kataga, iisa lamang ang basa — katotohanan,” he said.
(The title ‘The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma’ was not changed. Other cinemas in the country informed me that they couldn’t use the term “rapists.” Whether a movie decides to either change or replace certain terms, it nonetheless stands for the truth.)
Movie details
Filed before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 205, Sotto’s habeas data petition sought to ban the use of any information about him in any promotional materials for the movie.
Sotto’s plea for a writ was immediately granted by the court after finding it sufficient in form and substance. The court issued an order directing Yap to reply to Sotto’s petition.
Fortun said they have already received a copy of the petition, and will file a verified reply in time for the court’s hearing scheduled on January 15.
As for the gag order they requested, Fortun said it was meant to enjoin the parties from baring information to the public related to the upcoming movies, citing the possibility of causing harm to Yap’s project as it hadn’t been released to the public.
“Any disclosure of the verified return would not only violate [Yap’s] freedom of expression, but it shall also cause grave and irreparable damage to [the director’s] artistic license and outcome of the film,” the motion said.
Fortun reiterated that requesting a gag order is a way of “preventing erroneous statements” that can “violate” Yap’s rights.
“The gag order is to prevent the petitioner from disclosing details of the movie as it violates Direk Yap’s rights to the same. It is also to prevent erroneous statements coming from his lawyers. They claimed, nay, insisted that the judge had issued a takedown order of Direk Yap’s materials when there is nothing in the order that even suggests this. The same lawyers impliedly admitted this error when they filed an exparte Motion for Clarification before the courts closed last Friday,” he explained.
The legal battle between Sotto and Yap stemmed from a teaser of the Pepsi Paloma movie which included an outright mention of the “Eat Bulaga” host’s name in relation to the late sexy star’s alleged rape.
Despite this, Yap reiterated that the movie wasn’t created with an “ulterior motive” and “was not funded neither by the “anti-Sottos” and Television and Production Exponents Incorporated (TAPE).”
Aside from the habeas data case, Sotto also filed a cyberlibel complaint against Yap and his fellow respondents before the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office.
In Sotto’s habeas data petition, he said that from the mere title of the film, “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” (TROPP) it was apparent that Yap had wanted to “make a sensational banner headline to generate public interest in his movie by clearly insinuating that Paloma was raped.”