HELD FACTS YES. 1. Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas in 1990. The two lived together continuously and without The prosecution was able to establish the validity of the first interruption until the later part of 1991, when Tenebro informed marriage. As a second or subsequent marriage contracted Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda during the subsistence of petitioners valid marriage to Villareyes in 1986. Villareyes, petitioners marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio completely regardless of petitioners 2. Petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is Villareyes. In 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not with a certain Nilda Villegas. Ancajas thereafter filed a per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for complaint for bigamy against petitioner. bigamy. Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code criminalizes any person who shall contract a second or 3. Villegas countered that his marriage with Villareyes cannot subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been be proven as a fact there being no record of such. He further legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared argued that his second marriage, with Ancajas, has been presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity. Hence proper proceedings. A plain reading of the law, therefore, he cannot be charged for bigamy. would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.of forcible abduction is ISSUE absorbed in the crime of rape if the main purpose of the accused is to rape the victim. WON Tenebro is guilty of bigamy