Muntinlupa RTC grants Vic Sotto’s habeas data petition, orders Darryl Yap to answer

Vic Sotto and his wife Pauleen Luna at the Muntinlupa RTC on Thursday, Jan. 9 | Image: INQUIRER.net/Jessica Ann Evangelista

Even before Vic Sotto filed his cyber libel complaint against film director Darryl Yap, the actor-host already initiated the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data, seeking the removal of any information about him used in the promotion of the upcoming film about the late ’80s sexy actress Pepsi Paloma.

The habeas data petition was filed January 7 and was raffled to Branch 205 of the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court under Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan, the same judge that inhibited from the drug case filed against former Senator Leila de Lima.

In an order dated January 9, the court granted the issuance of the writ of habeas data and directed respondent Yap to reply to Sotto’s petition within five days.

A writ of habeas data is a legal remedy that allows a party to be free from threats to his privacy from individuals engaged in gathering or collecting information on a particular case. This recourse is usually resorted to by victims of politically motivated crimes but may also be applied by ordinary citizens in order to release information or to update, rectify, suppress, or destroy databases, information, or files in the control of the respondents in a petition.

A copy of the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205’s order granting a writ of habeas data to Vic Otto. Image: INQUIRER.net/ Jessica Ann Evangelista

“Finding the Petition sufficient in form and substance, let a writ of habeas data issue directing respondent Darryl Ray Spyke B. Yap to submit a verified return of the writ within five (5) days from receipt thereof in accordance with Section 10 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,” the order stated.

The court likewise set a summary hearing for the case on the morning of January 15, 2025 “to determine the merits of the petition.”

“The parties are enjoined to present on that day their respective evidence pertaining to the petition,” the RTC further ordered.

According to Sotto’s legal counsel, Enrique dela Cruz, the court granted their petition for habeas data before they filed the cyberlibel complaint at the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office, resulting in the order for the removal of all related posts about Sotto in relation to Yap’s upcoming film, “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” which is produced under his own production company, Vincentiments. The film, Yap said, is scheduled to be screened this February. 

“In the meantime, po, the writ was issued, so ibig sabihin po ‘yung hinihiling namin sa writ granted. Ititigil po muna lahat nung mga postings, etc.; in the mean time, pinapasagot siya [Yap] dun sa aming reklamo,” Dela Cruz told reporters.

On Jan. 1, a teaser for the film was released, revisiting the controversial allegations made by the late actress Pepsi Paloma in the 1980s, where she accused Sotto and his colleagues of assault.

INQUIRER.net obtained a copy of the habeas data petition, in which Yap and fellow respondents are enjoined from “further disseminating or causing the dissemination to the public via all platforms of promotional materials, teaser videos, and other materials, digital or otherwise, relative to the film ‘The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,’ which depict or mention the personal information of petitioner (Sotto).”

Sotto further asked the court to remove and take down such materials from all platforms, and compel the respondents to produce and provide all personal information of petitioner that they collected and processed for the film.

The petitioner further asked the court to, after hearing the case, issue an order making the writ of habeas data permanent.

Death, rape threats

Attached in Sotto’s habeas data petition was his judicial affidavit, in which he said that all the publicity materials for the Pepsi Paloma film resulted to “threats upon my life, and that of my family, as seen in Facebook comments and private messages sent to us.”

“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, 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.”

Luna, likewise, issued a separate judicial affidavit supporting her husband’s position.