is not an issue. It is not disputed that he and AAA knew each other very well as, in fact, they were at that time carrying on a five-year relationship which had borne two common children. Then, as for alibi, such a defense would prosper only if the accused was able to prove that not only was heat some other place when the crime was committed, but also that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission.38 Using such standards, Dinamling's alibi holds no water. Not only was his alleged location at the time of commission, that is, the XXX Police Station where he was on duty, in the same municipality as the crimes' place of commission, Dinamling himself also admited that this police station is just "two to three minutes" away from AAA's boarding house. Where the accused admits that he was in the same municipality as the place where the offense occurred, it cannot be said that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, and his defense of alibi cannot prosper.39 Therefore, the trial and appellate courts correctly found petitioner Dinamling guilty beyond reasonable doubt and such conviction must be upheld. To reiterate, the denial of the accused is a negative assertion that is weaker than the affirmative testimony of the victim.40 It almost has no probative value and may be further discarded in the absence of any evidence of ill motives on the part of the witness to impute so grave a wrong against the accused.41 As for alibi, it is not given weight if the accused failed to demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.42 But petitioner Dinamling also harps on the allegedly exculpatory testimony of Dr. Diaz, the substance of which allegedly frees him from responsibility for the incomplete abortion of AAA's unborn child. By way of background, a witness, who is an officer of the Ifugao Provincial Hospital, brought a copy of a medical certificate issued by a Dr. Johan Baguilat stating that: a) AAA was hospitalized at the said hospital from March 21 to March 24, 2007; b) AAA had an incomplete abortion secondary to the mauling, and; c) AAA had anemia, contusion, hematoma and abrasion of the left elbow.43 The witness testified that she herself typed the medical certificate and had it signed by Dr. Baguilat.44 Dr. Baguilat, however, was unable to testify, due to the alleged distance of the court from his current place of work.45 Instead of Dr. Baguilat, it was Dr. Mae Codamon-Diaz, an obstetriciangynecologist of the Ifugao Provincial Hospital, who testified that the medical certificate indicated that AAA was pregnant, but that her incomplete abortion might or might not have been caused by her "mauling."46 Dr. Diaz added that the anemia was caused by profuse bleeding, while the contusion and hematoma were caused by a fall, trauma, blow or impact to the patient's body.47 When crossexamined, Dr. Diaz stated that other possible causes of abortion include infection of the reproductive organ or urinary tract infection and intake of strong medicines, while another cause of anemia is malnutrition.48 Petitioner Dinamling's position is that such testimony of Dr. Diaz, which expresses an uncertainty as to whether the mauling of AAA caused her abortion, exculpates him from the crime. The Court disagrees. Petitioner barks up the wrong tree because the fact of AAA's physical injuries from the mauling, including her abortion, do not constitute an element of the crime with which he is charged. Such injuries are likewise not alleged in the two informations against him. Therefore, the