The defenses of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration when the prosecution has strong, clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator. Appellant failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the time and the place of commission of the crime.^[44] Thus, this Court has ruled that "alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke and courts have always looked upon it with caution, if not suspicion, not only because it is inherently unreliable but likewise because it is rather easy to fabricate."^[45]