Decision 6 G.R. No. 224742 law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. 37 (Citation omitted) Prudencio cannot claim to have been in good faith in assuming that there was no legal impediment for him to remarry based merely on the National Statistics Office's issuance of a Certificate of No Marriage Record. Based on Prudencio and Arlene's Marriage Certificate, along with the photos of the wedding ceremony, they were married on April 8, 1994. 38 Thus, the Certificate of No Marriage Record is not enough for Prudencio to assume that his previous marriage .with Arlene has been voided. Moreover, Prudencio claims that the prosecution's failure to offer a copy of the marriage license is fatal to its case. This contention lacks merit. As the Court of Appeals noted, "[t]he presentation of the marriage license is not a sine qua non requirement to establish the existence of a marriage as the certified true copy of the [M]arriage [C]ertificate is sufficient for such purpose." 39 Prudencio also claims that the absence of the solemnizing officer's signature in the Marri~ge Certificate renders the marriage void. It is worth noting that based on the trial court's findings, the discrepancy was merely inadvertent since a copy of the Marriage Certificate under the Local Civil Registry had been signed. 40 The trial court explained: The marriage contract between the accused and the complainant that was presented by the prosecution bears the signature of the solemnizing officer (Exhibit "C"). Upon the other hand, the NSO copy of the maITiage contract secured by the accused does not have the signature of the solemnizing officer but after a careful scrutiny, it is shown that the two (2) marriage contracts contain the same details of the civil wedding ceremony between the accused and the complainant. Even the signatures of the parties and their witnesses have a striking resemblance to the naked eye. The only logical explanation for this is that the duplicate original that must have been forwarded by the local civil registry to the NSO was not signed by the solemnizing officer but the other duplicate original on file with the local civil registry is duly signed. 41 Lastly, Prudencio's argument that the case should be dismissed due to Arlene's Affidavit of Desistance is unavailing. Affidavits of desistance that were executed after judgments of conviction had been promulgated by trial courts are generally received with extensive caution. 42 Arlene's Affidavit of Desistance provides that she filed the Complaint due to a misunderstanding, 37 38 Id. at 831. Rollo, p. 29. 39 Id. at 30. 40 Id. Id. at 30-31. People v. Antonio, 596 Phil. 808 (2009) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc]. 41 42 j