Darryl Yap’s motion to consolidate ‘Pepsi Paloma’ cases filed by Vic Sotto denied

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: Vic Sotto, Darryl Yap go head-to-head amid looming ‘Pepsi Paloma’ movie. Image: FILE PHOTOS

(From left) Vic Sotto and Darryl Yap. Image: FILE PHOTOS

The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court has rejected director Darryl Yap’s motion to consolidate two legal cases filed by veteran actor-host Vic Sotto in connection with the controversial trailer for “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma.”

In an order dated January 14, Judge Liezel Aquiatan of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205 ruled against Yap’s bid to merge Sotto’s petition for a writ of habeas data and his separate criminal complaint for 19 counts of cyber libel.

“The motion for immediate consolidation is devoid of merit. The two legal actions are inherently distinct in nature, purpose, jurisdiction, and procedure,” the presiding judge stated.

The court explained that habeas data petitions are governed by separate procedural rules from criminal complaints under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

“The petition and the criminal complaint are pending before distinct forums and are governed by separate procedural frameworks. Thus, consolidation is legally impermissible,” stated the court, emphasizing that each case must proceed independently.

The court also clarified that while the writ of habeas data had been issued, it did not constitute a takedown order, contrary to the interpretation of Sotto’s legal team.

In a separate ruling, the court denied Sotto’s motion to issue a show-cause order against Yap over a social media post allegedly violating a gag order. 

The court found that the post merely reiterated its directives with minor deviations but reminded Yap of the existing gag order and the “severe consequences” for future violations.

Sotto initially filed the habeas data petition to demand the removal of all the film’s promotional materials and a criminal complaint accusing Yap of spreading “malicious and defamatory statements” after the film’s trailer linked him to the alleged assault of Paloma in the 1980s.

Meanwhile, the preliminary hearing scheduled for Jan. 15 and the summary hearing set for Jan. 17 would proceed as planned.

Read more...