Warrant of arrest vs. Maui out

THE People of the Philippines want Maui Taylor; and quite literally. The Viva “hot babe” is the subject of a warrant of arrest that Bogo City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Douglas Marigomen issued last week.

“We were told that it has already been sent to the police for enforcement,” Provincial Prosecutor Jane Petralba yesterday said.

For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter

The warrant followed the criminal case that Petralba’s office filed against the actress, Maureen Anne Rodriguez Faisan in real life, last year yet.

And its issuance came after she failed to personally appear before Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, the original complainant in the indictment.

Maui was charged together with actress Jennifer Lee and actor Paolo Paraiso for their participation in a show in Bantayan during Black Saturday last year.

Those behind the show-–Elton Tiu, Asuncion Celia-Floro, Rommel Salomon and Mercury Gumera-–were likewise impleaded.

Acting on the findings of Assistant Prosecutor Nap Alburo, Petralba found probable cause to indictment them for violating Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code.

The provision prohibits immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows and comes with a penalty of six years and one day to 12 years in prison.

Lee, together with the impleaded organizers of the show, saw Garcia, Friday, and apologized.

Taylor, however, was not present and instead sent her mother, Annette.

Capitol consultant on information and revenue generation Rory Jon Sepulveda said the issuance of the warrant is part of court procedure.

But he said the governor and the Provincial Government did not back down from its promise to drop the suit if those involved apologize and do what they can to forward the cause of women.

Lee and Taylor agreed to serve as an ambassadress of women’s concerns and will speak during the Women’s Congress in Cebu on March 19.

Taylor, in her original counter-affidavit prepared by Manila lawyer Maria Katrina Bote Veguillas, denied the allegation of engaging in unlawful acts.

She said she was merely performing her role in a show that cast her services as an actress.

“I profess and practice and art in which conception and execution are governed by imagination and taste,” she said. “I am expected to stir the imagination and arouse the emotions of the audience by profound and moving portrayal of human character.”

She stressed that in doing her performance, she never performed any act that maybe perceived as “completely an unlawful indulgence of lust” which, in turn, is what defines what is legally defined as lascivious, obscene or vulgar.

She cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in People vs. Lee, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that “briefs and abbreviated bathing suits or, it may be conceded, panties and brassieres, are not immoral or indecent per se.”

“Simply wearing one or the other in public cannot be construed as exhibiting an indecent show, the High Court said.

“If my conduct during he said show was obscene and indecent, so every woman wearing bathing suit while dancing in the beach during holy week must be charged of violating he statutes accused of me,” she pointed out. (KNR with JGA)
style="display:block; text-align:center;"


SunStar website welcomes friendly debate, but comments posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the SunStar management and its affiliates. SunStar reserves the right to delete, reproduce or modify comments posted here without notice. Posts that are inappropriate will automatically be deleted.

Forum rules:

Do not use obscenity. Some words have been banned. Stick to the topic. Do not veer away from the discussion. Be coherent. Do not shout or use CAPITAL LETTERS!