THE Department of Justice (DOJ) has dismissed two separate complaints for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act (Republic Act 9262) against a prominent Filipino Indian businessman, ruling that the psychological report submitted by the complainant lacked evidentiary value.
In a 16-page resolution, the DOJ’s Provincial Prosecution Office in Bohol, through Officer in Charge Provincial Prosecutor Eric Ucat, described the psychological report presented by Vicki Narwani as “evidentially bankrupt,” noting it relied solely on her personal account and failed to independently establish any psychological or emotional harm allegedly inflicted by the complainant’s estranged husband, Rajiv Prem Chandiramani.
“Though presented as an expert evaluation, it is wholly dependent on the complainant’s unilateral narration and utterly fails to identify — much less analyze — the alleged Panglao, Bohol incident as a factual source of any psychological or emotional injury,” the resolution read.
Narwani alleged that Chandiramani verbally abused and physically threatened her in May 2018 while on vacation in Panglao, Bohol, claiming that resort employees called the police due to the commotion. She submitted the psychological report, including a sworn statement from SSg. Rommel Roy Villareal, and screenshots from text messages.
The DOJ dismissed Villareal’s statement as “pure hearsay,” citing the absence of official documentation such as a police blotter entry, dispatch log, or incident report. “A careful dispassionate scrutiny of his affidavit... reveals grave, fundamental, and irreconcilable defects that altogether obliterate its credibility,” the resolution said.
The decision stressed that RA 9262 protects genuine victims but cannot be used to advance “legally untenable, manufactured, or unsupported claims.”
In a separate 10-page resolution, the DOJ’s Provincial Prosecutor in Pampanga also dismissed a similar complaint by Narwani. Associate Prosecutor Mayda Lintag-Ursua found the allegations “couched in general terms lacking details” and noted that the complainant sought psychological consultations 11 years after the alleged Pampanga incident.
“Complainant should have subjected herself to a medical examination right after the incident, considering she was seven months pregnant at that time,” the Pampanga resolution read, adding that the delay undermined the credibility of her claims.
Chandiramani denied all allegations. Both prosecutors concluded that the complaints lacked sufficient evidence to proceed to court, highlighting the psychological reports’ failure to provide objective, verifiable proof of harm.
