Vic Sotto on Thursday filed 19 counts of cyberlibel complaint against filmmaker Darryl Yap in connection with the release of the trailer of the Pepsi Paloma movie that the latter is directing, which imputes that the actor-host was one of the alleged rapists of the late sexy star in the 1980s.

Sotto, accompanied by his wife Pauleen Luna, arrived at the Muntinlupa regional trial court to personally file his complaint against Yap, as he sought civil damages amounting to P20 million.

The complaint has yet to be raffled to one of the branches of the Muntinlupa RTC, which will handle the criminal complaint.

Atty. Enrique dela Cruz, counsel of actor Vic Sotto, shows the media a copy of the complaint-affidavit for cyberlibel that he filed against Darryl Yap. Image: INQUIRER.net/ Jessica Ann Evangelista

Sotto’s legal counsel Enrique Dela Cruz underscored that the basis of the complaint was Yap’s public posts and the teaser video of the latter’s upcoming film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” where Sotto’s name was dropped in the confrontation scene between Gina Alajar as Charito Solis and former child star Rhed Bustamante as Paloma.

Article continues after this advertisement

The filmmaker also heavily teased on his social media accounts the assailed Paloma trailer, as well as made several references believed to be alluding to Sotto, such as his use of the terms “Laban O Bawi,” (a popular segment of “Eat Bulaga”), and “Hindi Lyrics Ang Kanta” (pointing to the urban legend that the Eraserheads’ song Spoliarium is an ode to Paloma).

Article continues after this advertisement

“Labing siyam na beses po na nagpahayag o nagpost na mapanirang imputation ‘yung respondent. Dito po sa criminal case ang finile lang po natin ay si Mr. Darryl Yap,” Dela Cruz told reporters after the filing.

In a brief interview, Sotto stated that he holds no personal grudge against Yap and he is just against people who practice “irresponsible” actions on social media.

“A lot of people have been asking me what’s my reaction; ito na po ‘yun, this is my reaction. Ako, wala naman akong pinipersonal, I’m just against irresponsible people lalo na sa social media,” he said.

Meanwhile, a separate habeas data petition was filed by Sotto before the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205, which subsequently granted the writ.

INQUIRER.net also obtained a copy of Sotto’s judicial affidavit, in which he categorically denied raping Paloma.

He also bared threats to his life and security, as well as of his wife and children, attaching screenshots of such threats on social media due to Yap’s alleged posts.

“I felt unsafe and afraid since I read comments from strangers threatening to rape my wife and my minor child. I also felt that my right to privacy was being violated because this rape accusation is NOT TRUE and the dissemination of this wrong information is fooling a lot of people,” he said.

“As advised to me by my lawyers, under the Data Privacy Act, information related to any proceeding for any offense committed or alleged to have been committed by such person, as well as the result of such proceedings is sensitive personal information. Since Darryl admits that the subject of the case is the case filed by Pepsi Paloma against me, he is without a doubt processing my sensitive personal information.”

“In this case, respondent Darryl Yap, without even seeking my consent, is processing my personal information and sensitive personal information by repeatedly mentioning my name as the alleged rapist of Pepsi Paloma. He even appears to have made a whole movie about it. In one of his Facebook posts, he even posted a snippet of an old newspaper article regarding the filing of the case against me. Also, at the end of the teaser video, there is likewise a statement regarding the filing of the rape case against me by Pepsi Paloma on 17 August 1982. What is worse is that he maliciously and purposefully left out the fact that the said case was already dismissed because it is not true.”

In his judicial affidavit, Sotto further claimed that the case filed against him was dismissed, saying: “Since the case was dismissed in 1982 and more than four decades have lapsed, I can no longer locate as of the moment the
records related to the case. However, I have here (witness handing over a document) a printout of a news article reporting the dismissal of case filed against me. It was also reported in several news channels and to widely known that the case was dismissed.”