LOZADA v.

ARROYO
G.R. NO. 184379-80
April 24, 2012

SERENO, J.:

FACTS:

The instant petition stems from the alleged corruption scandal precipitated by
a transaction between the Philippine Government, represented by the National
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation (ZTE), a Chinese manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment. Sec. Romulo Neri sought the services of Lozada as
an unofficial consultant in ZTE-NBN deal. Latter avers that during the course of his
engagement, several anomalies in the transaction involving certain public officials
were discovered. When Lozada was issued a subpoena directing him to appear and
testify, he left the country for a purported official trip to London. Lozada, upon
disembarking the aircraft in Manila, several men held his arms and took his bag.
Sec. Atienza phoned Lozada, assuring him that he was with people from the
government. Lozada requested to be brought home to Pasig, but the men compelled
to deny his request on account of unidentified risks. Thereafter, Arturo Lozada
likewise filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo. CA denied the privilege of the Writ of
Amparo as the CA found that petitioners were unable to prove through substantial
evidence that respondents violated, or threatened with violation, the right to life, libert
and security of Lozada.

ISSUES:
Whether petitioners should be granted the privilege of the writ of amparo.

RULING:

No, petitioners should not be granted the privilege of the writ of Amparo.

The Supreme Court ruled that the totality of evidence adduced by petitioners
failed to meet the threshold of substantial evidence. The Court agrees with the
factual findings of the CA to the extent that Lozada was not illegally deprived of his
liberty from the point when he disembarked from the aircraft up to the time he was
led to the departure area of the airport, as he voluntarily submitted himself to the
custody of respondents. That he was not prevented from making a call to his brother
Arturo. The Supreme Court does not find any evidence on record that Lozada
struggled or made an outcry for help when he was allegedly “grabbed” or “abducted”
at the airport. He even testified that nobody held him, and they were not hostile to
him nor shouted at him. Foregoing statement show that Lozada personally sought
the help of Sec. Atienza to avoid the Senate personnel, and thus knew that the men
who met him at the airport were there to aid him in such objective. The actions of
Lozada evinced knowledge and voluntariness, uncharacteristic of someone who
claims to have been forcibly abducted.

Therefore, petitioners should not be granted the privilege of the writ of

Amparo in the present case.