Vhong Navarro's Defense of Alibi?

It seems that the defense of Vhong Navarro to his recent allegedly victim of rape Roxanne Acosta Cabanero is an alibi.  This is of course based only on the recent information gathered from the news recently.

Accordingly, the victim was raped allegedly in the nearby vicinity of Astoria Plaza Hotel in Pasig City on the of April 24, 2010.  As reported, Vhong Navarro guested the concert of Vice Ganda which took place in Island Cove Resort in Cavite on the same night.  Please see http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/02/23/14/vice-ganda-hotel-contradict-roxannes-rape-story for more information.  Thus, if this would be utilized by Navarro's camp, it is certainly a defense of alibi.

Alibi is defined as a claim or piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when an act, typically a criminal one, is alleged to have taken place (https://www.google.com.ph/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=7ZYKU-7xEouL8QeZ2IHAAw&gws_rd=cr#q=meaning+of+alibi). 

An alibi defense is a defense based on information that a defendant was not at the scene of the crime when the crime occurred, that he was somewhere else and could not be the person who committed the crime. The defense can have witnesses testify and present evidence at trial to support an alibi defense (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/alibi-defense.htm).

Defense of Alibi is dubbed as the weakest form of defense.  The Supreme Court said that alibi is a weak defense and even if it is supported by the testimony of friends of the accused, deserves the barest consideration (People v. Gamiao, 240 SCRA 284 [1995]).

According to the Supreme Court Advance Decisions -- Volume 59: (http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=nQ12HL9I6W4C&pg=PA894&lpg=PA894&dq=requisites+of+defense+of+alibi+to+prosper&source=bl&ots=N_-K3WUJEK&sig=WcQ0XvDp43yJtH9NMOWzZZEhRsE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZoKU7h-h7SJB_WdgbgL&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=requisites%20of%20defense%20of%20alibi%20to%20prosper&f=false)

1.  Alibi should be considered in the light of all the evidence on record for it can tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused. Tuason vs. CA, p. 277.

2.  For alibi to prosper, it must be convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the crime scene at the time of the incident.  People vs. Morin, p. 292.

3.  Well settled is the rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was likewise physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.  People vs. Umali, p. 328.

4.  It has been repeatedly-ruled that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification.  People vs. Ormilla, p. 337.

5.  The defense of alibi cannot prosper unless accused is able to prove that he was at some other place during the commission of the crime and that it was impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.  People vs. Ormilla, p. 337.

6.  We have consistently ruled that for alibi to prosper as a defense, two requirements must be satisfied - that the accused was not at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at that place and time.  People vs. Abarri, p. 348.