A Muntinlupa court ordered director Darryl Yap to delete and remove the teaser video of his controversial film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma.”
Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 205 issued a decision dated Jan. 24.
“The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” set to be released in Philippine cinemas on Feb. 5, stars Rhed Bustamante as Pepsi Paloma, Gina Alajar as Solis, Mon Confiado as Paloma’s manager Rey Dela Cruz, Rosanna Roces as Divina Valencia, Andres Balano Jr. as Richie D'Horsie, Shamaine Buencamino as Lydia Duena Whitley, Paloma’s mother, Jun Nayra as Paloma’s lawyer Renato Cayetano, and Beverly Salviejo as talent scout Monica, a talent scout.
“The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data filed by Petitioner Marvic ‘Vic’ Castelo Sotto is hereby partially granted,” the court ruled.
(From left) Vic Sotto, Rhed Bustamante as Pepsi Paloma and Darryl Yap (Photos: Jonathan Hicap, Darryl Yap's Facebook account)
In the decision, the court ordered Yap "to delete, take down and remove the 26-second teaser video from online platforms, social media, or any other medium."
“Respondent Darryl Ray Spyke B. Yap and any person or entity acting on his behalf, including the production team of Vin Centiments, are ordered to delete, take down and remove the 26-second teaser video from online platforms, social media, or any other medium for having misused the collected data/information by presenting a conversation between two deceased individuals, which cannot be verified as having actually occurred,” the court ruled.
Raymond Fortun, Yap’s lawyer, said that “other than to take down the teaser, the Decision does not enjoin any act, or deletion, destruction or rectification of erroneous data or information.”
The case stemmed from a teaser video of the film released on Jan. 1, showing a conversation between Paloma and Solis in which Sotto's name was mentioned.
In the teaser video, 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 to me! Tell me! Explain... Because I don't understand! Pepsi, answer me! Did Vic Sotto rape you?).”
Paloma shouted, "Oo! (Yes!)."
The dispositive part of the Muntinlupa court's decision on Vic Sotto's petition for writ of habeas data
The teaser video also became the basis for Sotto to file a P35-million cyber libel complaint against Yap with the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint is under investigation.
In his complaint-affidavit for the cyber libel complaint, Sotto stated that "despite having knowledge that the criminal case filed by Pepsi Paloma against me was dismissed, respondent framed the teaser video in a way that it explicitly identified me as the supposed rapist of Pepsi Paloma."
In the decision for the petition for writ of habeas data, the Muntinlupa court allowed the Pepsi Paloma film to be released.
“The respondent, however, is allowed to proceed with the production and eventual release of the film ‘The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,’” the court ruled.
The Muntinlupa court, however ,did not disclose the complete reason for ordering the removal of the film’s teaser video.
“That being said, the Court cannot disclose the full reasoning, aside from the misuse of data of unverifiable origin, for requiring the teaser‘s removal, as doing so might diminish the excitement of moviegoers and risk revealing key aspects of the film's content,” the court stated.
It added, “The Court cannot suppress the entire film, as it is based on the life story of Pepsi Paloma where the respondent secured the consent of the mother and brother, derived from public records like newspaper clippings, footages and is protected by artistic freedom and public interest.”
“Furthermore, this Court cannot address the issues of malice and bad motive, as these are valid matters for determination in the criminal complaint for cyberlibel, which remains under investigation by the Office of the City Prosecutor,” it said.
Fortun said they asked the court to continue the implementation of the gag order it earlier issued.
“We have asked for the continuance of the gag order issued by the Court, as the decision is not yet final and that, using the Court’s words, will ‘diminish the excitement of moviegoers and risk revealing key aspects of the film's content,’” he said.
According to the Supreme Court, “The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”