Decision 5 G.R. No. 224742 Likewise, the Court of Appeals held that Arlene's Affidavit of Desistance would not free Prudencio from liability since it did not cancel out the established elements of bigamy. 29 It noted that the Affidavit ofDesistance, which was executed 13 months after the trial court's judgment, should be considered an afterthought and given no probative value by the courts. 30 I The Court of f\ppeals applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and modified the penalty imposed by the trial court to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) qay of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one ( 1) day of prison mayor, as maximum, absent any attendant circumstances. 31 Prudencio filed, a Motion for Reconsideration, 32 claiming that the issuance of a Certific~te of No Marriage Record by the National Statistics Office made him believe that there was no legal impediment for him to remarry. 33 In its April 21, 2016 Resolution, 34 the Court of Appeals denied his Motion for Reconsideration. I Hence, Prudencio filed this Petition. 1 For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirrrting Prudencio De Guzman y Jumaquio's guilt for the crime of bigamy. The Petition is denied. The law provides that a judicial declaration of nullity is indispensable for the purposes of remarriage. 35 In Teves v. People: 36 I The Family Code hfl.S settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required :either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in j 29 Id. at 35. 30 Id. 31 ld. at 35-36. 32 Id. at 37--44. Id. at 39. 33 34 Id. at 107-109. 35 FAMILY CODE, 36 art. 40. 671 Phil. 825(2011) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].