Wazzup Pilipinas!?
There has been a surge of questions regarding whether Vic Sotto can sue Darryl Yap, considering that only a teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) was posted, not the full film. The short answer is yes, Vic Sotto can indeed pursue legal action.
In the Philippines, a person can be sued for libel if four key elements are present:
Defamation
Identification
Publication
Malice
Let’s break these down in the context of the issue at hand.
1. Defamation
The teaser for The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma (TROPP) includes a potentially defamatory accusation — it implies that Vic Sotto is a rapist. Defamation includes any accusation of vice, crime, or moral deficiency, and an accusation of rape certainly qualifies.
2. Identification
In the teaser, Vic Sotto is clearly identified when a character asks, "Rinape ka ba ni Vic Sotto?" ("Did Vic Sotto rape you?"). This direct mention unmistakably singles out Vic Sotto in the context of the accusation.
3. Publication
The teaser was posted on Darryl Yap's official Facebook page and other social media platforms, making it a public publication. Once something is made available to the public, the element of publication is satisfied.
4. Malice
Malice is an essential element of libel. Vic Sotto claims that he was not consulted by Darryl Yap or any of the actors involved regarding the depiction of this issue. In fact, Darryl Yap himself has admitted that he never informed or consulted Vic Sotto about the teaser. This lack of consultation suggests malice, as it indicates that the truthfulness of the claim wasn’t given proper consideration.
Vic Sotto will argue that Yap acted maliciously by disregarding the truth or falsity of the rape accusation. Sotto could also point to the Affidavit of Desistance from Pepsi Paloma, which could suggest that no criminal charges were filed or convictions made against him.
At a glance, all the elements of libel appear to be present.
Can Darryl Yap Defend Himself?
In my previous post, I mentioned that I would need to see the full film to better understand Yap’s motivations and assess his defense. However, as it pertains to the teaser, Yap might claim that the teaser was accurate in stating that Vic Sotto was once accused of rape by Pepsi Paloma, even though Paloma later withdrew her accusation.
Yap may argue that the teaser only shows Pepsi Paloma’s original statement, where she allegedly told a confidante about the rape before she retracted it. In this defense, Yap would claim, "It’s true that Pepsi Paloma accused Vic Sotto of rape, and that’s all the trailer shows."
However, there’s a major problem here.
The teaser doesn’t clearly communicate that Pepsi Paloma later withdrew her accusation. Moreover, Darryl Yap is not known for producing historically accurate films or documentaries. He has built a reputation as a polemic and political filmmaker, not someone dedicated to presenting factual historical events. As such, his defense of truth becomes weak, as his films are not typically regarded as reliable sources of factual accuracy.
The way the teaser is presented, it leaves a clear impression that Vic Sotto is guilty of rape, which could easily be deemed libelous by a court of law.
What About the Full Film?
Regarding the full film, there are reports that Vic Sotto has filed a legal motion in connection with the case, specifically seeking a writ of habeas data to prevent Darryl Yap from airing or publishing the movie. It’s unclear whether this motion was part of the same lawsuit or a separate one, but if true, the court has reportedly ordered Yap to desist from airing or publishing the full film.
This is where things get a little complicated. The use of a writ of habeas data to stop the publication of a film is unusual. One might wonder why Vic Sotto’s lawyers chose this particular legal tool. But then again, Atty. Buko Dela Cruz (a figure associated with the BBM Party List, and a somewhat controversial character) is known for his unconventional methods.
Good luck to Vic Sotto’s legal team, because Yap has a solid legal basis to argue for the right to air or publish the film. The issue of prior restraint — the government or the courts blocking the publication or dissemination of content before it happens — is a significant matter. In legal terms, prior restraint is highly frowned upon when it involves freedom of expression.
A Long Legal Battle Ahead
This is a complicated case, and I won’t dive deeper into every legal intricacy since I am not paid to represent either side. However, what stands out is that Darryl Yap has finally met someone who will challenge him after years of releasing controversial content, such as his LenLen series and other polemical works that have targeted public figures.
It’s been reported that Yap is already a millionaire, so it will be interesting to see if he can afford the potentially hefty P35 million lawsuit filed by Vic Sotto. This case could end up being drawn out all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the end, the outcome will depend on how both parties navigate the intricate world of Philippine law, media freedom, and defamation. It’s a fascinating legal battle that will set precedents for future cases involving accusations made through media and film.
*Based on the social media post of Jesus Falcis on his Facebook page but it was written in Tagalog.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
Post a Comment