Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-23-40000687-0000
Date: 2025-03-31
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Godfrey Sig-od (Respondent)

Appearances:
Rochelle Liberman / Victoria Di Iorio, for the Crown
Daniel J. Brodsky, for the Respondent

Heard: January 13-16, 2025
Justice: A.J. O'Marra

Application to Admit Ante-Mortem Statements

Introduction

Godfrey Sig-od is charged with the first-degree murder of his former spouse, Elvie Sig-od, and the first-degree murder of his daughter, Angelica Sig-od, on August 26, 2022. It is alleged that Mr. Sig-od stabbed his former spouse and daughter to death as they drove southbound down Bathurst Street, Toronto, in Elvie Sig-od’s motor vehicle.

The Crown seeks to have admitted in evidence a number of out-of-court utterances and statements of the deceased pursuant to the principled exception to the rule against hearsay. The utterances and statements are as follows:

1. Utterances made by the deceased, Angelica, to police officers of the York Regional Police Service on October 7, 2020, that she had an argument on October 6, 2020, with her father in which he yelled, “I would have killed you a long time ago,” and written in a note presented to the officers expressing her fear of her father by his actions.
2. A Facebook Messenger message sent by Angelica to her father, Mr. Sig-od, on October 26, 2020, in Tagalog translated in English: “If you’re not ready to talk and apologize for abusing me before and for hurting me with your words, stop hurting me emotionally because I am having suicidal thoughts so leave us alone if you haven’t realized your mistakes. Thank you. Godfrey.”
3. A videotaped statement made by Elvie Sig-od to York Regional Police Service officers, November 20, 2020, in which she described her husband, on her seeking from him signed divorce papers, as declaring that “it’s my plan to kill you” and to take her two eyes.

The Applicant seeks to have the utterances and statements admitted based on the principled approach to admission of hearsay as meeting the criterion of necessity and as being reliable. The Applicant submits that the utterances and statements are highly relevant and probative, providing evidence of the respondent’s intention, motive, and animus toward the deceased.

The position of the respondent is that the evidence amounts to nothing more than bad character evidence and should be held to be inadmissible as having no probative value and being highly prejudicial. If admitted, such evidence of bad character would lead the trier of fact to engage in prohibitive reasoning that he is the type of person to have committed the offences.

Applicable Principles

Under the principled exception to the rule against hearsay, as set out in R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57 at para. 23, hearsay can exceptionally be admitted into evidence when the party tendering it demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that the twin criteria of necessity and threshold reliability are met.

The necessity criterion is founded on society’s interest in getting at the truth and, while there is no exhaustive list of the circumstances in which out-of-court statements will be deemed necessary, the criterion will generally be met in circumstances where the declarant has died.

Further, the judge must assess the threshold reliability of the statements to determine whether hearsay statements are admissible, which is established when the hearsay is considered “sufficiently reliable to overcome the dangers arising from the difficulty of testing it...” (See R. v. Khelawon at para. 49.)

In assessing threshold reliability, the trial judge must identify specific hearsay dangers presented by the statement, such as the declarant’s perception, memory, narration, or sincerity, and consider whether there are any means to overcome them. As noted in R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35 at para. 27:

The hearsay dangers can be overcome, and threshold reliability can be established, by showing that: “(1) there are adequate substitutes for testing truth and accuracy (procedural reliability), or (2) there are sufficient circumstantial or evidentiary guarantees that the statement is inherently trustworthy (substantive reliability),” Khelawon, at paras. 61-63.

Procedural reliability is established where there are adequate substitutes for testing the evidence given the declarant has not testified under oath in court and subject to the scrutiny of contemporaneous cross-examination. As noted in R. v. Bradshaw at para. 28, other circumstances may suffice:

Substitutes for traditional safeguards include a video recording of the statement, the presence of an oath, and a warning about the consequences of lying.

Substantive reliability of a hearsay statement is established where there are any circumstances in which the statement was made that substantially negate the possibility the declarant was untruthful or mistaken, and any evidence that corroborates or conflicts with the statement. (R. v. Bradshaw, para. 30)

Although the standard for substantive reliability is high, it is not one of absolute certainty. (R. v. Bradshaw, para. 31) Substantive reliability is established when the statement is sufficiently reliable that contemporaneous cross-examination would add little, if anything, to the process. See also R. v. Mohamad, 2018 ONCA 966 at para. 102.

Corroborative evidence can be relied on in establishing threshold reliability “if it shows when considered as a whole and in the circumstances of the case that the only likely explanation for the hearsay statement is the declarant’s truth about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement.” (R. v. Bradshaw, para. 44)

In determining whether corroborative evidence assists in establishing threshold reliability the trial judge should:

• Identify the material aspects of the hearsay statement that are intended for their truth;
• Identify the specific hearsay dangers raised by those aspects of the statement in the particular circumstances of the case;
• Based on the circumstances and these dangers, consider alternative, even speculative explanation for the statement; and
• Determine whether, given the circumstances of the case, the corroborative evidence led at the voir dire rules out these alternative explanations such that the only remaining likely explanation for the statement is the declarant’s truthfulness about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement.

Overview of the Circumstances Leading to Declarant Utterances and Statements

Elvie Sig-od and Godfrey Sig-od are from the Philippines. They married in 2001. Their daughter Angelica was born the same year. In 2004, Elvie and the respondent effectively separated when she moved to Hong Kong to pursue business interests. However, shortly after, she returned to the Philippines and found that the respondent was involved with another woman with whom he had a child. In 2006, Elvie then moved to Canada on a work visa. After two years, she applied for permanent resident status. Her daughter, who had been left back in the Philippines, was cared for by her grandmother. In 2011, Elvie brought Angelica to Canada.

Elvie had little communication with the respondent. In 2019, Godfrey’s mother contacted her and asked her to sponsor him to Canada so that he could find work. Further, he had indicated that he would like to work on their relationship. On being sponsored by Elvie, the respondent arrived in Canada in January 2020. Elvie decided to give the respondent the chance to reconcile their relationship and allowed him to live with her and Angelica.

It did not go well. The respondent was verbally abusive with Elvie and Angelica, which caused conflict in their home and was increasingly stressful for Elvie. He would claim she married someone or was involved with someone else. She described it as harassment. In August 2020, Elvie told the respondent to move out of the residence. Notwithstanding, he continued to reside there, and conflicts continued.

October 7, 2020 – Angelica’s Utterances to Police

On October 7, 2020, two police officers, Constable Lo and Constable Leeds of the York Regional Police Service, were dispatched to meet Elvie and Angelica at a park nearby their residence to inquire into a domestic complaint. The officers met with Angelica and Elvie at the park away from the house in order to avoid conflict with the respondent.

The officers testified on the voir dire they were told that on the day before, October 6, the respondent and Angelica got into an argument that led to Angelica becoming fearful of her father. She had posted a sign that read “Sharing is caring” on the refrigerator because the respondent would eat everything without leaving any for the family. During the argument, Godfrey walked up to Angelica’s face and yelled, “I would have killed you a long time ago.” In order to diffuse the conflict, Angelica walked away. Angelica also provided the police officers with a note she had written that expressed her feelings of fear and depression caused by her father. She spoke about fearing the same physical abuse she had experienced in the Philippines and did not wish to relive the experience. Elvie and Angelica said they wanted a restraining order against the respondent, but the officers advised that such an order would need to be issued by the court.

On October 19, 2020, Elvie signed an application for divorce and submitted it to the Superior Court of Justice Family Court in Newmarket. In the petition, Elvie noted that the respondent had been continually harassing and verbally abusing them. He had threatened both her and Angelica, and they were living in fear of him.

In October 2020, the respondent moved out of Elvie’s residence, and they separated again.

On October 26, 2020, a message was sent on Angelica’s Facebook Messenger account to the respondent’s account written in Tagalog, translated to English, that read as follows:

(Angelica PIO): if you’re not ready to talk and apologize for abusing me before and for hurting me with your words, stop hurting me emotionally because I am having suicidal thoughts so leave us alone if you haven’t realized your mistakes. Thank you. Godfrey

No response was received to the message.

November 20, 2020 – Elvie’s Videotaped Statement

In the early morning of November 20, 2020, Elvie, by prearrangement with the respondent, attended to where he had been working to receive from him the signed divorce documents. They met outside of the front entrance to his workplace. He told her that he did not have the divorce papers, he had forgotten them. Elvie began to walk back to her car parked nearby when the respondent asked her to come back. As she turned to face the respondent, he said to her, “I’m planning to kill you . . . and before I came here, I’ve been planning … that was my plan to kill you . . . I’ll take out your, I’ll take out your two eyes.”

He told her that she was the next to die. Her sister had died recently. He got close to Elvie’s face, and she pushed him away. She was scared, shaking, and she took the threat seriously.

When she arrived home, she told Angelica about what had happened and also called her two closest friends, Beatriz Cabreros and Aurora Guiness, for advice. She was told to go to the police.

That night, she went to the 5 District Station of the York Regional Police Service and provided a videotaped statement to interviewer Detective Constable Jennifer Garford.

The interview commenced at approximately 9:53 p.m. Elvie stated that she understood the interview was being videotaped and she consented. She confirmed that she did not have any physical or mental conditions, or that she was impaired by alcohol or drugs. She was advised that there was no Commissioner of Oath available to swear or affirm that what she said was truthful; however, she confirmed that she promised to tell the truth. She also confirmed that she understood that she could be a witness in a court concerning the statement she provided, and that if she changed her statement or claimed not to remember the events, the contents of the statement could be used as evidence in court. Further, she confirmed she understood that it was a crime in Canada to lie to the police, mislead an investigation, and to falsely accuse another person of committing a crime. She understood that she could be charged with an offence if she lied to the police. She understood that it was her choice to make a statement and that she could leave at any time. She acknowledged that her decision to make a statement was not being forced by any police officer or other person.

She recounted in the videotaped statement the information as cited above about meeting the respondent and the threat.

Ms. Beatrix Cabreros, a friend to Elvie since they met through their church in 2008, provided a voluntary videotaped statement to the police the day after Elvie and Angelica were killed, August 27, 2022.

Prior to giving her statement, she was cautioned and warned of criminal consequences of lying and she agreed to tell the truth. She confirmed she understood that it was a videotaped statement.

In the statement, she confirmed her friendship with Elvie and knew that the respondent had resided with Elvie and Angelica after he came to Canada. Prior to that, they were separated. She testified on the voir dire that, as told by Elvie, the respondent had threatened both Elvie and Angelica. Elvie told her, “Enjoy your car, I will remove your eyes, I will kill you.” She confirmed that when she spoke with Elvie, she appeared afraid. Her advice to Elvie was that she should go to the police, which she did on November 20, 2020.

August 2022

At the time, Elvie was helping the respondent with his documentation for him to purportedly return to the Philippines. Yet the respondent wanted to continue their relationship and Elvie did not.

In the weeks leading up to their deaths, the respondent contacted Elvie and, notwithstanding being divorced, he wanted to be with her, but Elvie’s response by Facebook Messenger was, “Don’t insist on something that is not possible…Just move on…and don’t call me mah or mahal anymore, wake up to the truth that we are no longer together.”

In addition, Elvie was asking the respondent for repayment of money she had spent sponsoring him to Canada: $5,000, $4,000 for an immigration lawyer, and $1,000 for his permanent resident status.

The last Facebook Messenger messages in Exhibit #3 from the respondent to Elvie ending just after noon August 26, 2022, the date of Elvie and Angelica’s deaths, are:

i) 11:19 a.m. “Miz ma miz hug and kiss you, I have accepted that I will die and never taste a woman again. I will die only you I will love forever mwuah.”

ii) 11:55 a.m. “Most people work because of their families, because of their children and spouses. Soon our skin will become wrinkled. Why should I work here if we can’t build our families? Lord knows I want to build our families.”

iii) 11:56 a.m. “I couldn’t sleep all night.”

iv) 12:01 p.m. “Please, I beg you to agree to form our family, our skin will soon become wrinkled.”

At approximately 3:30 p.m. that afternoon, Elvie’s silver Lexus motor vehicle was seen to veer to the right and mount the curb on Bathurst St. The respondent exited the passenger side of the vehicle and pulled Elvie and Angelica from the vehicle. They lay on the road and sidewalk where they died from multiple stab wounds. Witnesses said he was heard to say, “I stabbed her she cheated on me.” The respondent was arrested at the scene.

Relevant and Material

In R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 at para. 98, the court, in considering the admissibility of anti-mortem statements in the context of inciting propensity reasoning due to the bad character evidence, stated:

In prosecutions for domestic homicide, evidence is frequently admitted to elucidate the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased. This evidence, which often discloses misconduct other than that charged, not only demonstrates the nature of the relationship between the parties, but also may afford evidence of motive and animus relevant to establish the identity of the deceased’s killer and the state of mind with which the killing was done.

Here, while identity is not in issue, the anti-mortem statements not only demonstrate the nature of the relationship but provide evidence of motive, animus, and intent.

Necessary

As both declarants, Elvie and Angelica, are deceased, the necessity criterion is met in this case. The only means by which their evidence can be brought before the court is by admission of their anti-mortem statements and/or utterances. The statements and utterances are material as being relevant to their state of mind and for proving motive, animus, and the intent of the respondent. In its absence, there would be an incomplete picture of the context, narrative, and events that culminated in their deaths.

Threshold Reliability

With respect to whether the threshold reliability of each statement and utterance for the trier of fact to evaluate the truth and accuracy of them, I find as follows:

October 7, 2020, Utterance of Angelica to Police Officers

On the assessment of procedural reliability with respect to the October 7, 2020, utterance:

i) Angelica made her comments to police officers, both of whom were available on voir dire to testify, as well as at trial.

In terms of substantive reliability:

i) Her utterances were made naturally and without prompting.
ii) She related the utterance the day after the incident was said to have occurred.
iii) She provided a written note to the officers (which both testified to having viewed) that outlined her feelings of fear for her father and depression as a result.
iv) There is nothing in the circumstance that suggests a reason or motive of the declarant to fabricate what she said.
v) Extrinsic evidence that corroborates her utterance are Angelica’s Facebook Messenger message to the respondent in which she confronted him about abuse and her thoughts of suicide.
vi) In Elvie’s application for divorce filed in court, she noted that she and her daughter were both threatened by the respondent in the past.
vii) In Elvie’s statement to police on November 20, 2020, she recounted that the respondent had threatened Angelica in October 2020 and that they met with police away from their house to prevent enraging Godfrey.
viii) Further, in Ms. Cabreros’ statement to police on August 27, 2022, she recounted that Elvie had told her the respondent had threatened Angelica previously.

Angelica’s Facebook Messenger Message, October 26, 2020

With respect to procedural reliability of Angelica’s Facebook Messenger message, October 26, 2020, I consider:

i) The fact that the message was “memorialized in writing,”
ii) Sent directly to the respondent by the declarant, and
iii) The message chain in its entirety is reflected in Exhibit No. 2, Supplementary Report of the extraction of the contents to Angelica’s phone provides a sufficient basis for the trier of fact to find procedural reliability.

In terms of substantive reliability:

i) A message was sent two and a half weeks after the event, thereby removing concerns about memory decay.
ii) The message chain in its entirety is provided and there is an absence of any reason and/or motive to fabricate.
iii) Corroborative evidence can be found in Angelica’s utterance to the police on October 7, 2020, and report of the respondent’s threat,
iv) In Elvie’s application for divorce, and
v) A statement to police in November 2020 that the respondent threatened her and Angelica, memorialized in the videotaped statement and police notes.

Elvie’s Videotaped Statement on November 20, 2020

With respect to the threshold reliability of Elvie’s videotaped statement in November 2020, the procedural reliability can be found in the following:

i) Elvie was cautioned prior to the statement.
ii) She promised to tell the truth.
iii) She was warned about the consequences of lying and that she could be charged criminally if she were to lie.
iv) She confirmed she gave her statement voluntarily and that she was not pressured in giving the statement by any person or police.
v) The interviewing officer, Detective Garford, confirmed with her that she told the truth and that she was given an opportunity to change any portion of her statement to ensure it was accurate.

In terms of substantive reliability, the following indicia are present:

i) The account emerged naturally and without prompting.
ii) The interviewer Sergeant Garford used open-ended and non-leading questions.
iii) The statement was made the same day as the occurrence, thereby removing concerns of memory decay.
iv) There was significant detail as to the threat itself and the events that led up to it.
v) The declarant’s demeanor during the statement.
vi) The absence of any reason and/or motive to have fabricated the content.
vii) Additional corroborative evidence is provided through Ms. Cabreros’ statement almost two years later in which she recounted that Elvie had disclosed to her that the respondent had threatened to kill her, to take out her eyes, and make comments about her use of her motor vehicle.
viii) In addition, Elvie’s application for divorce filed with the court references that the respondent previously threatened her and Angelica.

Conclusion on Admissibility

The anti-mortem utterances and statements of Elvie and Angelica sought to be admitted are, in my assessment, probative of the nature of the respondent’s relationship with his ex-wife and daughter and probative of an animus, motive, and intention. While the statements and utterances are in late 2020, there is continuing denial of circumstances by the respondent – permanent separation by divorce. The evidence serves to elucidate the relationship between the parties. While there is a prejudicial effect due to the misconduct attributable to the respondent, the probative value outweighs the potential prejudicial effect.

The statements and utterances of Elvie and Angelica made in October and November 2020 are admitted under the principled exception to hearsay as being necessary as the declarants are dead. The hearsay statements and utterances in this instance exhibit sufficient threshold reliability indicia to overcome the dangers of hearsay and afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis to evaluate the truth and accuracy of them.

There are portions of the videotaped statement that are to be excluded as overly prejudicial and outweigh any probative value in my view:

1. Page 11 of the videotaped statement, line 8-12 referencing abuse to the daughter in the Philippines
2. Page 26-27 commencing at line 11 at page 26 to line 10 on page 27 in reference to the respondent hurting someone and beating his mother and daughter in the Philippines.
3. Page 32 line 21 and 22 with respect to hurting his own mother.
4. Page 33 line 18-20 in reference to abuse of his daughter in the Philippines.
5. Page 48 lines 3 to page 49 to line 17 in reference to the respondent having a “gun” in the Philippines.

A.J. O’Marra
Released: March 31, 2025