Why Did Vic Sotto Get So Emotional During the Cyberlibel Trial Against Darryl Yap? Fans were stunned by Vic Sotto’s emotional reaction in court during the ongoing cyberlibel case against Darryl Yap. What was it about this case that moved the usually composed actor to tears, and what does it reveal about the situation?
(From left) Vic Sotto and Darryl Yap. Image: FILE PHOTOS
Vic Sotto became emotional on the witness stand on Tuesday as he testified before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court in his cyberlibel complaint against controversial director Darryl Yap over the teaser of the latter’s film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma” (TROPP).
Sotto said in his sworn affidavit that the movie teaser wrongly portrayed him as one of Pepsi Paloma’s alleged rapists “without any factual basis” and exposed his family to online ridicule and attacks.
“The comments and direct private messages from netizens consisted of personal attacks and threats of physical harm against me and my family members. They especially disparaged my name, eroded my reputation, discredited my social standing, and diminished my esteem, self-respect, and goodwill, which I have taken a lifetime to build and protect, as I was unfairly branded as a rapist without any factual basis, as suggested in the teaser video,” he said.
The actor-host added that the teaser was cut after Rhed Bustamante as Pepsi said the dialogue “Oo! (Yes)” in the exchange with Gina Alajar as Charito Solis asking if she was raped by Vic Sotto.
The “Oo” part in the teaser supposedly confirmed the rape, yet the full script of the film showed a different context that was never released publicly. “Oo, alam ko ang ginagawa ko (Yes, I know what I’m doing) is the supposed full line of Bustamante.
Sotto, who was assisted in court by his lawyer, Enrique Dela Cruz Jr., and accompanied by his wife, actress Pauleen Luna, recalled that Paloma herself denied being raped and that the complaint she filed in the 1980s was dismissed nearly four decades ago.
The “Eat Bulaga” host further noted that during a January 17, 2025 hearing on his separate habeas data petition, Yap admitted in open court that the full movie would not name him as one of Paloma’s rapists.
“As it turns out, the accused was well aware that the case filed by Pepsi was dismissed,” Sotto said. “He could have made the teaser in such a way that I am not branded as a rapist… but these were all thrown out the window just so the accused could generate buzz.”
Dela Cruz told Inquirer Entertainment that Sotto became emotional during the testimony given the continued threats to his family and the further damage to his reputation.
“Bossing Vic cried when he told the story that his wife and daughter were very affected by the posting of the teaser video because many believed it. Until now, many have posted negative comments about him, his wife and daughter. There were threats to rape and hurt them,” shared Atty. Dela Cruz.
Citing advice from his lawyers, Sotto stated in his testimony that he is seeking ₱20 million in moral damages and ₱15 million in exemplary damages.
“Due to the malicious and defamatory posts made by the accused, I have been subjected and continue to be subjected to public ridicule and contempt and even threats of physical harm,” he said. “The social humiliation has caused me to suffer mental anguish and serious anxiety due to my tarnished reputation and destroyed credibility.”
The Muntinlupa City Prosecutor’s Office earlier indicted Yap on two counts of cyber libel based on Sotto’s complaint. In a March 17 resolution, prosecutors ruled that the teaser was defamatory, noting that it ascribed a serious crime to Sotto and fueled backlash from viewers.
While Sotto had initially filed 19 counts and sought ₱35 million in damages, prosecutors limited the indictment to two counts. In January, Judge Liezl Acquiatan of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205 ordered Yap to take down the teaser across all platforms, yet allowed production and the eventual release of the film to proceed. Yap has since denied any intent to damage Sotto’s reputation.
Yap’s lawyer, Atty. Raymond Fortun, told Inquirer Entertainment that “he hopes the court would favorably consider the points he was able to establish during cross-examination.” However, he did not elaborate on the said points, as it would “violate subjudice rules.”
