THE Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicted the estranged wife of Filipino-Indian businessman Rajiv Chandiramani for falsification of public documents in connection with an allegedly spurious affidavit used in a domestic abuse complaint.
In a five-page resolution, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office found probable cause and reasonable certainty of conviction to charge Vicki Narwani with falsification by a private individual under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 (1) and (2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The case arose from Narwani’s two complaints for violation of Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, against Chandiramani, which were later dismissed by DOJ provincial prosecutors in Bohol and Pampanga for being fabricated.
In his complaint, Chandiramani said he and Narwani had agreed on a co-parenting arrangement for their 10-year-old son after their divorce, but alleged that she later restricted his access to the child.
He said he allowed his son to travel to Dubai in July 2025 because he was assured it would be beneficial. However, he claimed communication was cut upon arrival and that Narwani’s current partner was also in Dubai. Chandiramani said he later demanded the child’s return, but instead faced a VAWC complaint.
To support her case, Narwani submitted an “Affidavit of Undertaking and Waiver” allegedly signed by Chandiramani and notarized on Oct. 19, 2024. Chandiramani denied signing the document, saying his signature was forged because he never appeared before a notary public.
He also presented a certification from the Makati City Clerk of Court showing the notarial record corresponded to a different document — a Secretary’s Certificate notarized on Oct. 1, 2024, casting doubt on the affidavit’s existence.
The DOJ gave weight to the certification, ruling it was strong evidence that the affidavit was falsified and that Chandiramani had no participation in its execution.
It added that Narwani was presumed to be the author of the falsified document because she used it as evidence in her complaint against Chandiramani.