The true rapists of Pepsi Paloma

Darryl Yap is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a prolific director. He may even be mediocre at best. But he always finds judicious ways to stay relevant by venturing into controversial themes and stories that seek to critically provoke and intrigue. A clout chaser through and through, he has practically made a living out of his disingenuous takes on relevant issues of the day through his movies.

His latest film, “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” is no exception. Here, he attempts to resurrect an issue that obviously has no closure but at the same time has already been mooted by both time and circumstances. So the intention to bring this up becomes highly suspect considering that there is no way the truth can truly be ferreted out. It’s not like it’s a case that has been decided by the Court or the person concerned remains living and therefore could validate her own story.

The main problem with biopics is the tendency to simplify real people, presenting them as mere caricatures devoid of complexity and moral ambivalence. Here, they remove all shades of gray and instead present their narratives in black and white for compelling effect. If there are protagonists, then there should be antagonists and even all-around villains. But this is not what real life is about.

Honestly, I have yet to see the movie though the teaser alone can trigger a potential defamation suit depending on how it is presented and argued.

Libel as we all know takes place when defamatory matter referring to another person is published and the defamatory publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to that person’s reputation. A matter will be defamatory when the meaning it conveys (directly, indirectly or by innuendo) has a tendency to lower that person (and their reputation) in the minds of ordinary members of the community.

Interestingly, many film outfits attempt to circumvent the law by claiming their movies are loosely based on actual events or fictionalized versions of a true story. Unfortunately, this is not how the law works. One cannot escape culpability by adding the word “allegedly” to a story or news report or claiming that imaginary details or some facts are added. In fact, even if the names and depictions of living persons are changed, there could still be libel if they can still be identified by the public.

In 2009, a plaintiff in the US was awarded with damages for a fictional portrayal modeled on her. She claimed that her fictional counterpart was depicted as a sexually promiscuous alcoholic who drank on the job and that therefore defamed her.

For a fictionalized version to work, the movie should be absurdly far from the truth like this film about President Lincoln being a vampire slayer for instance. But if the story is closer to home, then it would fail as one cannot depict personal characteristics that make a person recognizable, and mix them with other traits that are false and defamatory, but, still believable.

Assuming the actual movie would really touch on the alleged rape of Pepsi Paloma, then the director would be flirting with potential disaster. In fact, the teaser alone caused some people to conclude that Vic Sotto actually raped her at least based on the comments posted on various social media platforms. The problem here is that while there is no proof she was not raped, there was also no proof that she was.

So it would be better to leave it at that since nobody really knows the truth. But if Darryl Yap really wants to dig into this, he could have made a documentary movie instead sans opinions and interpretations. By infusing his own personal take through addition of unverified facts for dramatic effect, he may unwittingly cause more harm than good.

If that happens, he is not only exploiting the memory of a person who had long been dead but is also unfairly tarnishing the image of certain individuals who remain to be presumed innocent.

If that is not rape in a very loose sense, I don’t know what is.