Court issues arrest warrant vs. Darryl Yap over Pepsi Paloma film
A Muntinlupa court has issued an arrest warrant for director Darryl Yap, but he was not taken into custody after posting bail.
On March 19, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 203 recalled the arrest warrant after Yap posted a P10,000 cash bond for each of the two libel charges, totaling P20,000.
Yap's lawyer, Atty. Raymund Fortun, confirmed the bail. The court scheduled Yap's arraignment for March 26, 2025.
The charges stem from Yap's teaser for his upcoming film, 'The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma', which included a controversial scene involving actor-host Vic Sotto.
Yap's camp and Sotto declined to comment on the matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
11 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Central Bank imposes Dhs3.5m fine on exchange house in UAE
The Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) imposed a financial sanction on an exchange house, pursuant to Article (14) of the Federal Decree Law No. (20) of 2018 on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Illegal Organisations and its amendments. The financial sanction of Dhs3,500,000 (Dhs3.5 million) has been imposed after assessing the findings of an examination conducted by the CBUAE, which revealed that the exchange house failed to comply with AML/CFT policies and procedures. The CBUAE, through its supervisory and regulatory mandates, endeavours to ensure that all exchange houses, their owners, and staff abide by the UAE laws, regulations and standards established by the CBUAE to maintain transparency and integrity of the financial transactions and safeguard the UAE financial system. WAM
Gulf Today
12 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Man offers to buy business class air ticket, defrauds another of Dhs13,000 in Abu Dhabi
Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a person to return Dhs13,000 plus a compensation of Dhs5,000 to another after misleading him into believing he could book a business-class ticket from the UAE to another country at a competitive price. In good faith, the victim transferred the money to the defendant's account, but the defendant then pocketed the money, failed to fulfill the agreement and procrastinated when asked to return the amount. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which he requested that he be obligated to pay Dhs13,000 plus a compensation of Dhs10,000, the legal interest on the amounts required to be paid and the legal fees and expenses incurred by the lawsuit. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant made him believe that he could book a business class ticket from the UAE to another country at a competitive price and consequently he, in good faith, transferred the amount to his account. The defendant, however, pocketed the money, failed to fulfill the agreement and procrastinated when asked to return the money, he added, noting that these actions caused him financial harm, which prompted him to file this lawsuit with the aforementioned requests. The court explained that it is legally stipulated in articles 304 and 308 of the civil proceedings law that 1) The hand that has taken is liable until it gives it back. 2) The one who extorts the property of another shall have to restore it back in the same condition in which it was at the time of extortion, and at the same place where extortion occurred. It is proven from the papers that the defendant pocketed the plaintiff's money, which was transferred to him as shown in the account statement, the court said. Therefore, the court will build on that by obligating the defendant to pay Dhs13,000to the plaintiff, it added. The court stated that as the plaintiff requested to be compensated for the harms that befell him and based on the causal relationship between the error and the harm, the court hereby estimated the compensation that the plaintiff deserves for such harms at Dhs5,000.
Sharjah 24
a day ago
- Sharjah 24
CBUAE imposes financial sanction on exchange house
The financial sanction of AED3,500,000 has been imposed after assessing the findings of an examination conducted by the CBUAE, which revealed that the exchange house failed to comply with AML/CFT policies and procedures. The CBUAE, through its supervisory and regulatory mandates, endeavours to ensure that all exchange houses, their owners, and staff abide by the UAE laws, regulations and standards established by the CBUAE to maintain transparency and integrity of the financial transactions and safeguard the UAE financial system.
