SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

School of Law

Judicial Affidavit of Mona Lisa Vito

A Requirement in Legal Forms

Submitted by:

MOTILLA, Alvin D.

Submitted to:
Atty. Benjamin Gaab
Class Instructor

Short term A.Y. 2018-2019

1|Page
 MY COUSIN VINNY (1992)

THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION:

Main Factual Issue: Did Bill Gambini and Stanley

Rothenstein used 1964 Buick Skylark, Michelin model
XGV wheel as service in vehicle in commiting the crime
charged?

Theory of the case: Yes. Herein accused used 1964

Buick Skylark, Michelin model XGV wheel when they entered
the convenience store, shoplifted and killed the cashier and
the same vehicle is used by the perptetrators when they were
apprehended in the State of Alabama by police officers.

Because of the identity of the vehicle, particularly the

color, and wheel marks left on the Parking area of the
convenience store, the accused should be convicted for the
crime of murder.

THEORY OF THE DEFENSE:

Main Factual Issue: Are the tire marks found in the

convenience store the same with the tire marks of the
defendants when they were apprehended by the police officers
in Alabama?

Theory of the Case : No. the tire marks found in the

convenience store where the crime of robbery and homicide
took place were from a 1964 Buick Skylark, Michelin model
XGV wheel not a 1963 Pontiac Tempest which were used by
the defendants, Bill Gambini and Stanley Rothenstein in
traversing from home to Alabama.

Thus, by basing on the tire marks, the accused were not

the ones who committed the crime charged against them.

Other Factual Issue:

1. What is the difference between the marks that a 1964

Buick Skylark, Michelin model XGV wheel and a 1963
Pontiac Tempest can do in the road?

2|Page
 Answer: In a 1963 Pontiac Tempest, marks on the road
can be observed because the two equal-length tire marks
had positraction. It's a limited slip differential which
distributes power equally to both the right and left tires.
You can't make those marks without positraction, which
was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark.

The '64 Skylark had a regular differential. You step

on the gas, one tire spins, other tire does nothing. The
'64 Skylark had a solid rear axle. So when the left tire
would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and
ride along its edge. Tire mark stayed flat and even.

3|Page
 Republic of the Philippines
First Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 4
Baguio City

PEOPLE OF THE CRIMINAL CASE No. 44145

PHILIPPINES For: MURDER
Petitioner,

- versus –

BILLY GAMBINI AND

STANLEY ROTHENSTEIN
Respondents

X-------------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF MONA LISA VITO IN THE FORM

OF QUESTION AND ANSWER IN LIEU OF DIRECT
TESTIMONY

This is the testimonial Affidavit of Mona lisa Vito, in

question and answer form, which was taken by Atty. Alvin
Motilla taken at Baguio City, pursuant to Section 5 paragraph
(k) of the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC.

OFFER OF TESTIMONY

A. The testimony of the witness is being offered to prove

that;

a. The tire marks of the defendants’ car and the tire marks
in the convenience store were the robbery and homicide
incident happened was not identical.

b. That the defendants’ tires were not 1964 Buick Skylark,

Michelin model XGV wheel but one of a 1963 Pontiac
Tempest tire.

c. To rebut the testimony of Mr. George Wilbur by means of

contradiction.

4|Page
 I, MONA LISA VITO of legal age, Filipino and a resident
of Baguio City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state:

I am a witness in the Criminal Case No. 44145, a case

for murder.

Atty. Alvin Motilla, asked me the following questions and

I responded to his questions according to my personal
knowledge and he reminded me that I am under oath and I
may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Direct Examination of MONALISA VITO:

1. Q: Good morning Ms. Witness.

A: Good morning sir!

2. Q: Ms. Witness, what is your occupation?

A: I am an out-of-work hairdresser, sir.

3. Q: As a hairdresser, in what way does that qualify you

to become an expert in automotives?
A: My father is a mechanic. His father was a mechanic.
My mother's father was a mechanic. My three brothers
are mechanics.

4. Q: Ms. Witness, did you have a formal education in

automotives?
A: Yes sir. My father enrolled me in Brooklyn Technical
School.

5. Q: What degree did you obtain in that school?

A: A degree in Automobile dynamics sir.

6. Q: What did you do after finishing Automobile dynamics?

A: I worked immediately sir.

7. Q: Where?
A: In my father’s garage.

8. Q: For how long did you work there?

A: For about 5 years sir.

9. Q: What would you do in your father's garage?

5|Page
 A: I do tune-ups, oil changes, brake relining, engine
rebuilds, rebuilt some trannies, rear ends.

10. Q: How many automobiles would come to your garage

every day, if you can remember?
A: Around 10 to 15 sir.

11. Q: After working in your father’s garage, did you seek

another employment related to automobiles before
working as a hairdresser?
A: Yes sir. At my brother Simon’s garage.

12. Q: What would you do in your brother’s shop?

A: Same with my father’s garage sir. I do tune-ups, oil
changes, brake relining, engine rebuilds, rebuilt some
trannies, rear ends.

13. Q: Ms. Vito, what particular field of automotive is your

expertise?
A: General automotive knowledge sir.

14. Q: Aside from working in your father and brother’s

garage, did you attend any training or seminar related to
automotive knowledge before?
A: Yes sir. To name some, ADS Convention and
Tradeshow, Classics in the Park, and Automotive
Marketing Summit.

15. Q: Now, Do you know why are you testifying in this case?
A: Yes, sir.

16. Q: What for, Ms. Witness?

A: To rebut the testimony of George Wilbur about
automotive knowledge sir.

17. Q: Now Ms. Witness, I will show you a picture. It has

been argued by me that the two accused in this case met
up at Sac o-Suds at the same time driving identical
metallic mint-green 1964 Buick Skylark convertibles.
Now, can you tell us, by what you see in this picture, if
the defense’s case holds water?
A: No sir. These marks in the picture were made by a
1963 Pontiac Tempest.

May I move your Honor that this photograph be marked as

Exhibit “1”

6|Page
18. Q: Will you prove us the fact that you just stated Miss
Witness?
A: The car that made these two equal-length tire marks
had positraction.

19. Q: What do you mean by that Ms. Witness?

A: You can't make those marks without positraction,
which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark.

20. Q: What do you mean by positraction madam Witness?

A: It's a limited slip differential which distributes power
equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark
had a regular differential, which anyone who's been
stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas,
one tire spins, other tire does nothing.

21. Q: Is that it Ms. Witness?

A: No, there’s more. The '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle.
So when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right
tire would tilt out and ride along its edge.

22. Q: How is this related in this case?

A: The tire mark stayed flat and even. '64 Skylark car
had an independent rear suspension.

23. Q: Anything else, Ms. Witness?

A: Now, in the '60s, there were only two other cars made
in America that had positraction and independent rear
suspension and enough power to make these marks.

24. Q: What are these two (2) cars Ms. Witness?

A: One was the Corvette, which could never be confused
with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body
length, height, width, weight, wheelbase and wheel track
as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac
Tempest.

25. Q: Is it possible that the ’64 Skylark be confused with the

1963 Pontiac Tempest?
A: Yes.

26. Q: Is it possible then that these cars are available in

metallic mint-green paint?
A: Because both cars were made by the same
manufacturer, specifically G.M., it is possible.

27. Q: How certain are you in your answers Ms. Witness?

7|Page
 A: Very sure sir.

28. Q: What can you say now in the testimony of Mr. Wilburg
considering that you have different opinons?
A: We have different testimonies sir but I am certain on
the things that I testified today.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 19th of July, 2019 at Baguio City.

_____________________________
MONALISA VITO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th of

July, 2019 at Baguio City, Philippines.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 201___.

SWORN ATTESTATION

I, ALVIN MOTILLA, with office address at National Life

Insurance Building, Session Road, Baguio City, after having
been sworn to, in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state: THAT:

1. I am the one who conducted the examination of the

above witness;

2. I hereby certify that I have faithfully caused and

recorded the questions asked to the witness and the
corresponding answers the witness gave;

3. I did not teach the witness regarding her answers

and no other person was present nor assisted the witness
during the examination.

8|Page
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 19th of July, 2019, in Baguio City, Philippines.

ALVIN MOTILLA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th of July

2019, in Baguio City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his
IBP Card with Roll of Attorney’s No. 505890.

Notary
Public

Doc. No……;
Page No……;
Book No……;
Series of 2019

Copy Furnished:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Baguio City

9|Page
10 | P a g e