jilibay Darryl Yap’s motion to consolidate ‘Pepsi Paloma’ cases filed by Vic Sotto denied
(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 corpus and his separate criminal complaint for 19 counts of cyber libel.
Article continues after this advertisement“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 country’s balance of payments (BOP) position recorded a $3.5-billion surplus in September, a reversal from the $414-million deficit posted a year ago, the BSP said in a report.
FEATURED STORIES ENTERTAINMENT Angel Locsin breaks social media hiatus after recovering X account ENTERTAINMENT MMFF 2024: ‘And the Breadwinner Is,’ ‘Green Bones’ top box office ENTERTAINMENT Regine Velasquez 'disappointed' SB19 Stell’s concert guesting won't push throughThe 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.
slot 777 onlineArticle continues after this advertisementThe 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.
Article continues after this advertisementIn 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.
Article continues after this advertisementThe 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.
Article continues after this advertisementMeanwhile, the preliminary hearing scheduled for Jan. 15 and the summary hearing set for Jan. 17 would proceed as planned.
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
https://ovlujna6rh.com/MNL777/38959.html
