Film director Darryl Yap pleaded not guilty at his arraignment at a Muntinlupa court on June 3 in two cyber libel cases filed by actor and TV host Vic Sotto stemming from former’s teaser of the controversial film "The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma." 

Yap was arraigned at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 203, which is hearing case Nos. 25-271 and 25-272 for libel in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

“Director Darryl Yap pleaded not guilty to both charges of cyber libel,” Raymond Fortun, Yap’s lawyer, said after the arraignment. 

Last Jan. 9, Sotto filed a complaint with the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office for 19 counts of cyber libel against Yap. 

Sotto was not present during Yap’s arraignment. 

Raymond Fortun, Darryl Yap's lawyer (Jonathan Hicap)

Vic Sotto's lawyers Enrique Dela Cruz Jr (left) and Isaiah Asuncion III (Jonathan Hicap)

Director Darryl Yap arrives at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice on June 3 for his arraignment in two cases of cyber libel filed by actor Vic Sotto (Jonathan Hicap)

In March, the Muntinlupa City Prosecutor’s Office resolved the complaint and filed two counts of cyber libel against Yap for the teaser which was posted on the Facebook accounts of Yap and VinCentiments. 

“After thorough evaluation of the allegations and supporting evidence submitted by both parties,. we find prima facie evidence, with reasonable certainty of conviction, to hold respondent Darryl Ray Spyke Yap y Balingit liable for two (2) counts of Libel under Arts. 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 10951 in relation to Sec, 4 (c) (4) of R.A. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” the prosecutor’s office stated in a resolution. 

"The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma” stars Rhed Bustamante as Paloma, Gina Alajar as actress Charito Solis, Mon Confiado as Paloma’s manager Rey Dela Cruz, Rosanna Roces as Divina Valencia, Andres Balano Jr. as Richie D'Horsie and Shamaine Buencamino as Lydia Duena Whitley, Paloma’s mother.

In the film trailer released on Jan. 1, Solis (Alajar) asked Paloma (Bustamante), "Ipaliwanag mo sa akin! Magsabi ka sa akin! Ipaliwanag mo... Dahil hindi ko naiintindihan! Pepsi sumagot ka! Ni-rape ka ba ni Vic Sotto? (Explain it to me! Tell me! Explain it... Because I don't understand! Pepsi, answer me! Did Vic Sotto rape you?).” 

Paloma shouted, "Oo! (Yes!)."

Mediation

The court set the first trial date on Aug. 19. 

But before the case goes to trial, Fortun and Enrique Dela Cruz Jr., Sotto’s lawyer, said the two parties will undergo a mandatory mediation conference. 

Fortun said during the mediation, a mediator will seek to have both parties reach an agreement so that the case will not go to trial. 

On the possibility of Yap seeking a settlement with Sotto, Fortun said, “There’s always room for settlement. There’s always room for parties to reconcile.” 

Dela Cruz said they have not talked to Sotto if he is open to any amicable settlement with Yap. 

“Bago magsimula yung trial, laban tayo ‘no. Yun ang instruction niya sa amin. Hindi pa namin siya ulit nakakausap kung open siya sa amicable settlement (Before the trial starts, we're going to fight. That's his instruction to us. We haven't talked to him again to see if he's open to an amicable settlement). We’ll ask him again,” he said. 

He said Sotto will appear in the Aug. 19 trial as he will be presented as a witness. 

Dela Cruz said their evidence is strong and they believe that they will win the case. 

"The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma" was not released in the Philippines due to the legal requirements imposed by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), which will review the film. 

The MTRCB asked the film distributor, PinoyFlix Films and Entertainment Production, to get clearance from the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, Department of Justice, and Office of the City Prosecutor in Muntinlupa. 

“To set the record straight, the MTRCB Registration Unit could not accept the materials submitted by the representative of Pinoyflix because the Legal Affairs Division required the distributor to provide three specific requirements such as 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,” the MTRCB previously said.