greater credence than documents testifying merely as to [the] absence of any record of the marriage[.]"45 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro46 was originally an action for the declaration of nullity of a marriage.47 As part of its evidence, the plaintiff presented a certification that states that the marriage license "cannot be located as said license . . . does not appear from [the local civil registrar’s] records."48 This court held that "[t]he certification . . . enjoys probative value, [the local civil registrar] being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license."49 This court further said that "[u]naccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of ‘due search and inability to find’ sufficiently proved that [the local civil registrar] did not issue [a] marriage license . . . to the contracting parties."50 The circumstances in Castro and in this case are different. Castro involved a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage that does not involve the possible loss of liberty. The certification in Castro was unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion, there being no prosecution for bigamy involved. On the other hand, the present case involves a criminal prosecution for bigamy. To our mind, this is a circumstance of suspicion, the Certification having been issued to Norberto for him to evade conviction for bigamy. The appreciation of the probative value of the certification cannot be divorced from the purpose of its presentation, the cause of action in the case, and the context of the presentation of the certification in relation to the other evidence presented in the case. We are not prepared to establish a doctrine that a certification that a marriage license cannot be found may substitute for a definite statement that no such license existed or was issued. Definitely, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite should be fully aware of the repercussions of those words. That the license now cannot be found is not basis per se to say that it could not have been issued. A different view would undermine the stability of our legal order insofar as marriages are concerned. Marriage licenses may be conveniently lost due to negligence or consideration. The motivation to do this becomes greatest when the benefit is to evade prosecution. This case is likewise different from Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño.51 In Cariño, the marriage contract between Santiago Cariño and his first wife, Susan Nicdao, bore no marriage license number.52 In addition, the local civil registrar certified that it has no record of any marriage license issued to Santiago Cariño and Susan Nicdao.53 This court declared Santiago Cariño’s first marriage void for having been solemnized without a marriage license.54 In this case, there is a marriage contract indicating the presence of a marriage license number freely and voluntarily signed and attested to by the parties to the marriage as well as by their solemnizing officer. The first marriage was celebrated on July 17, 1987. The second marriage was entered into on December 4, 1994. Within a span of seven (7) years, four (4) months, and 17 (seventeen) days, petitioner did not procure a judicial declaration of the nullity of his first marriage. Even while the bigamy case was pending, no decision declaring the first marriage as spurious was presented. In other words, petitioner’s belief that there was no marriage license is rendered untrue by his own actuations.