Parole Ineligibility Ruling
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: March 3, 2025
A.J. O'Marra
Introduction
[1] Godfrey Sig-od was tried on a two-count indictment that charged him with committing first degree murder of his ex-wife Elvie Sig-od and Angelica Sig-od his daughter, both on August 26, 2022. On arraignment he pleaded guilty to Manslaughter, which was rejected by the Crown.
[2] On February 8, 2025, Mr. Sig-od was found guilty by the jury of the first-degree murder of his ex-wife Elvie Sig-od and guilty of the second-degree murder of his daughter, Angelica.
[3] He is here today to be sentenced on both counts. The mandatory sentence for first degree murder is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, which I hereby impose for the conviction for the murder of Elvie Sig-od.
[4] The mandatory sentence for second degree murder is also life imprisonment, however s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code requires the sentencing judge to fix the period of parole ineligibility that the judge deems fit in the circumstances from a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 25 years.
[5] Section 745.4 directs that in the exercise of my discretion in determining the period of parole ineligibility that I am to have regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation of the jury, if any.
[6] In R. v. Shropshire , 1995 SCC 47 the leading case on parole ineligibility Iacobucci J. stated at para. 29:
As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that, according to the criteria enumerated in s. 744 (now s. 745.4), the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability to be released into the general public assessed. To this end, an extension of the period of parole ineligibility would not be "unusual", although it may well be that, in the median number of cases, a period of 10 years might still be awarded.
[7] It was further observed in Shropshire at para. 20 the determination of parole ineligibility is a very fact sensitive process. Unusual circumstances are not required for a sentencing judge to exercise their discretionary power to increase the period of parole ineligibility from the 10-year minimum. Further, it was stated at para. 29 that in permitting a sliding scale of parole ineligibility Parliament recognized that within the offence of second-degree murder there will be a broad range of seriousness reflecting varying degrees of moral culpability.
[8] In addition, as consideration of parole ineligibility is part of the sentencing process, the court must consider the various sentencing objectives and principles, such as deterrence and denunciation, aggravating and mitigating factors and rehabilitation, the last of which is of a more limited consideration than sentencing for other offences. The period of parole ineligibility must reflect the fundamental principle of proportionality set in s. 718.1 which provides that the sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of the responsibility of the offender”.
[9] The sole issue for me to decide today is the period of imprisonment Mr. Sig-od must serve before being considered for parole by the parole authorities for the offence of second-degree murder. It must be borne in mind it would be up to the parole authorities if on that date or thereafter he would be considered eligible for parole. Imprisonment may continue for the rest of Mr. Sig-od’s life.
[10] Pursuant to s. 724(2) of the Criminal Code I am to accept as proven all facts, express or implied that are essential to the jury’s verdict and I am permitted to find other facts disclosed by the evidence. In R. v. Aragon , 2022 ONCA 244 at para. 105 it was noted:
To sentence an offender convicted by jury, a sentencing judge must therefore identify the facts that are essential to the jury’s verdict or, in other words, identify “the express and implied factual implications of the jury’s verdict: R. v. Ferguson , 2008 SCC 6 at para. 17 .
Nature of the Offence
[11] On Friday August 26, 2022, at approximately 3:30 p.m. Elvie Sig-od drove her Lexus motor vehicle southbound on Bathurst Street. Sitting beside her in the front passenger seat was her daughter 20-year-old Angelica Sig-od. The offender, Godfrey Sig-od, Elvie’s ex-spouse sat in the rear passenger seat behind Angelica. Godfrey took a large knife from his backpack and from the back seat began to stab Angelica and Elvie repeatedly. The vehicle veered to the right and came to a stop partially in the curb lane and on the sidewalk. Motor vehicle traffic stopped in both directions. Most believing there had been an accident. Unsuspecting, and horrified passersby witnessed Godfrey Sig-od brutally stab to death Elvie and Angelica outside of the vehicle.
[12] He was seen to pull a young woman, his daughter Angelica, from the front passenger seat and stabbed her with a knife, described as a large hunting knife by one witness, a butcher. He stabbed her in the chest and back and as she fell to the ground bent over her and continued to repeatedly stab her. Elvie was seen to exit the driver’s side door and move toward the back of the vehicle where Godfrey Sig-od again attacked her stabbed her repeatedly in the chest, back, and face. Then he threw the knife over a nearby fence into the ravine and the West Don River below. He was heard by one witness to say in a loud and clear voice: “I killed her because she cheated on me”. He was seen to pace back and forth as Angelica’s body lay on the sidewalk and Elvie’s on the roadway behind her car. He remained at the scene until arrival of the police and his arrest.
[13] On the post-mortem examination Elvie Sig-od was found to have 14 stab wounds, 5 wounds to her face, 8 to her torso and 1 to her upper limb. Angelica was found to have 19 stab wounds, 7 to her head and neck, 6 to her torso and 6 to her limbs.
[14] On examination of Godfrey Sig-od’s backpack, a broken knife blade with blood and hair belonging to Elvie was located. The matching broken handle was found in the footwell of the rear passenger seat where he had been sitting and behind the seat that had been occupied by Angelica.
Circumstances Surrounding its Commission
[15] Elvie Sig-od and Godfrey Sig-od married in 2001 in the Philippines. Their daughter Angelica was born the same year. In 2004 Elvie and Godfrey effectively separated when she moved to Hong Kong to pursue business interests. However, she returned shortly after to the Philippines and found that the respondent was involved with another woman with whom he had a child. She left in 2006 to Canada on a work visa. There she worked as a personal support worker and after two years applied for a permanent resident status. Angelica had been left back in the Philippines, and in Elvie’s absence she was cared for by her grandmother, Godfrey’s mother. In 2011 Elvie brought Angelica to Canada to be with her.
[16] Elvie had little communication with Godfrey, however in 2019 Godfrey’s mother contacted her and asked Elvie to sponsor him to Canada so he could find work. He said that he wanted to work on their relationship. Elvie sponsored him and he arrived in Canada in January 2020. They lived in the same residence, however in different rooms. The attempted reconciliation did not go well with the offender verbally abusing Elvie and Angelica causing conflict in their home and making it increasingly stressful for both Elvie and Angelica. He constantly accused her of being with someone else and being in another marriage. At one point he saw her with another man and challenged him to a fight.
[17] There was conflict with Angelica arising out of an incident in October 2020 over a note, “sharing is caring” left for Godfrey, which was about him eating all the food in the refrigerator leaving none for Elvie and Angelica. As a result of his explosive anger and comment to Angelica that he would have killed her a long time ago it led to mother and daughter contacting police and asking for them to meet away from the house so as not to engender further anger by Godfrey. They contacted the police in the belief that they could obtain a restraining order, however they were advised that it would have to come from the court. The police decided there was no criminal offence committed and no contact with Godfrey was made by police.
[18] Shortly after, Angelica posted a message to her father on Messenger Facebook that the stress and emotional abuse he was causing was affecting her: “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.”
[19] In November 2020 Elvie had decided to institute divorce proceedings against Godfrey. In an attempt to have him sign the petition previously delivered to him, she arranged to meet him at his place of work one morning. When he told her he did not have the papers and would not sign them, as she turned to leave, he asked her to come back. As she turned to face him, he said to her “I am planning to kill you” and that he would take her eyes. She attended to the police that day and provided a lengthy statement about their relationship and what had transpired when she had attempted to obtain the signed divorce papers by Sig-od. The investigating officers instituted a warrant to arrest Godfrey however, it was never served.
[20] Godfrey moved to a boarding house and lived separate from Angelica and Elvie. Even though they were divorced he continued trying to have a relationship with Elvie. However, Elvie told him that what he wanted was not possible, they were no longer together and for him to “just move on”.
[21] In August 2022 Godfrey wanted Elvie to help him renew his soon to expire passport for him to possibly return to the Philippines. However, he still desired a return to their relationship with Elvie. She on the other hand was prepared to help him renew the passport but told him he had to first compensate her for the money that she spent sponsoring him and for paying a lawyer to assist him obtain his permanent resident status in Canada.
[22] In the days leading up to August 26, 2022, he messaged Angelica for her to try to arrange with Elvie and her to take them to a mall where he could go to restaurants with them and buy a new cell phone. He also wanted Elvie to take him to renew his passport, needed to return to the Philippines, but it was clear in her responses Elvie wanted compensation for her previous expenses for his sponsorship and permanent resident. Godfrey continued to implore Elvie to have a relationship with him, including remarrying. He sent over twenty messages from August 25 to 26 to within hours of the stabbing of both Angelica and Elvie.
[23] The messages reveal he was fixated on resuming his relationship with Elvie and to reform the family. On August 25-26, 2022, he wrote the following messages:
Mah, Lord knows that I am saving my salary for our wedding here, you are my forever, the Lord is my witness because I love you so much. Let’s start again, please let’s forget the past. Let’s get married here, I will take care of it, I’ll give you the money for our wedding. I was told 15 for the wedding, I will give it to you.
Mah, please, I only want to be with you for the rest of my life. We’re getting old and before our skin gets wrinkled, I want us to be happy together, I miss you so much. I will love you forever.
Mah, my manoy (colloq. penis) misses you so much. Hehehe lets get married here because I want you to be with me and Lica. Let us not wait until our skin is wrinkled. The lord answered my prayers several times and the Lord said you are my forever. And I am your forever. Even if you ask the Lord, we are forever.
Mah, just tell me, I’m ready to give you the money for our wedding here. Goodnight Mah, I love you forever, mwah
Mah, when will we get married again? I miss hugging and kissing you so much.
My really poor manoy (colloq. penis) of mine, he will die without being able to be in you.
I miss hugging and kissing you so much. I’ve accepted that I may never be with another woman again. I will die loving only you, forever. Mwah.
I’m going back to the Philippines if I can’t find a job here and I don’t want to work if our family isn’t whole. It’s no use if I save money if we can’t build our family, our skin will soon become wrinkled, I super-duper miss you so much Mah.
Mah when will we get married again, I will wait for you until the next life you are still my forever. . .
Even when I go the gym, I’m too lazy to go because I lost my hope of building our family . . .
I want to build our family before I go to the after life . . .
Most people work to support their families, including their children and spouses. Soon, our skin will become wrinkled. Why should I work if we can’t build our families? Lord knows I want to build our families . . .
Mah please, I beg you to agree to form our family. Our skin will soon become wrinkled.
[24] The last message was sent to Elvie at 12:01 p.m., approximately 3½ hours before stabbing to death both Elvie and Angelica.
[25] What actually transpired between the three in Elvie’s car leading up to the stabbing is known only to Godfrey. Heclaimed during Elvie’s insistence he compensate her before helping him to renew his passport Angelica told him he should just pay Elvie what he owed to get it over with. He described her involvement as “meddling”. Further, when he said to them that money should be sent to his mother in the Philippines for food Angelica refused and she only recognized her mother’s family, not his family. The offender claimed that he got very mad and just exploded. He reached into his backpack to find his cell phone, the purpose of which was not explained, saw the knife. He claimed to remember nothing about the stabbings until he saw blood on his hands and saw Elvie and Angelica lying on the ground outside the car. He said he remembered saying “what did you do to me . . . you cheated on me . . . you ruined everything . . . it is only $3,500.00, is that the value of your life?” He then threw the knife into the river.
[26] The jury rejected his claim of not remembering anything about the stabbing of both Elvie and Angelica. In finding him guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal stabbing of Angelica the jury was satisfied that he either intended to kill Angelica or he meant to cause her bodily harm that he knew was likely to kill her, but not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was premeditation, as they were with respect to the killing of Elvie.
Character of the Offender
[27] Godfrey Sig-od is 49 years of age, originally from the Philippines. He has no criminal record. The court was advised by counsel that he has a high school education and prior to his being sponsored to emigrate to Canada he worked in construction and as a part-time bouncer in the Philippines.
[28] He married Elvie Pio in 2001. Angelica was born shortly thereafter and was their only daughter. In 2004 Elvie left the Philippines to work in Hong Kong however returned shortly thereafter. She found that Godfrey had become involved with another woman with whom they had another daughter.
[29] Elvie left in 2006 on a work visa to Canada and two years later acquired permanent resident status. Godfrey and Elvie were effectively separated until 2019 when his mother asked Elvie to sponsor him to Canada. He arrived in January 2020 and lived with Elvie and Angelica although a reconciliation did not occur. Elvie divorced Godfrey in November 2020, notwithstanding they remained in contact.
[30] His main interest and pre-occupation was to attend a gym to body build.
[31] Godfrey worked sporadically through agency laborer placements however, three weeks prior to killing Elvie and Angelica he left his job placement. In a series of messages with Elvie in August 2022 leading up to his killing of Elvie and Angelica he claimed to have been looking for work for several weeks and wanted Elvie to help him with his job search and to help him with renewal of his passport claiming it was necessary for his work, or his return to the Philippines.
Recommendation of the Jury
[32] After three days of deliberation the jury returned verdicts of first-degree murder in the death of Elvie Sig-od and second-degree murder in the death of Angelica. With respect to the verdict in the death of Angelica for second degree murder the Criminal Code required that the jurors be given the opportunity to make individual recommendations as to the length of imprisonment between 10 and 25 years before the offender could be considered for parole eligibility.
[33] In this case one juror recommended 10 years, one juror recommended 20 years, one juror recommended 21 years, one juror recommended 24 years, and 8 jurors recommended 25 years.
[34] The Criminal Code also requires that the trial judge take the jury recommendation into account although the ultimate decision as to parole ineligibility is in the discretion of the trial judge.
[35] I note that 11 of the 12 jurors recommended parole ineligibility in the range of 20-25 years, with the majority, 8 recommending the maximum number of years.
[36] However, before accepting the recommendation as providing the community perspective I take into account the caution proffered by Watt J., (as he then was) in R. v. Barry [1991] OJ No. 2666 ; affirmed [1993] OJ No. 3955 that it is difficult to gage with any accuracy the weight to be attached to juror recommendations as they have not been given guidance on precedents concerning appropriate ranges or any evidence of such sentencing issues as recidivism, future danger to society or “other matters which might logically bear on the issue other than what they can recall was given at trial”. Jury recommendations are not to be slavishly followed as they are the product of “a somewhat informal exercise”.
[37] No more information was provided about the offender on the sentencing hearing beyond that which was in evidence on the trial. I note that in that regard I am in the same position as to the nature of the offender as was the jury.
[38] I accept that the recommendations convey cogently the community’s shock and horrified reaction to the offender’s grotesque killing his daughter, a particularly serious second-degree murder requiring a strong message to denounce what the offender did. It is a factor I take into account, in addition to judicial precedent reflecting the appropriate range, the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances of its commission.
Victim Impact Statement
[39] The Crown submitted two victim impact statements on the hearing, one from Elboy Pio, the brother of Elvie and uncle of Angelica, and another statement from Esther Rana, a member of the public, and witness to the savage attack on two defenseless women.
[40] Mr. Pio wrote eloquently of the exquisite pain from their loss:
Deep grief and sorrow. The pain of losing Elvie and Angelica is very intense, specifically it happened through violence, its grief is unbearable. If only I was with them during the horrible incident, it might not (have gone) that way. The day we lost them, our world changed forever. The shock, the pain, and the sheer disbelief were unbearable. Every morning, we woke up wishing it had all been a nightmare, only to be met with the crushing reality that they were gone. The laughter, voice, and presence were stolen from us in an (act) of unimaginable violence, and that loss is something we will carry for the rest of our lives. Beyond the emotional devastation, this tragedy has impacted every aspect of our life. Fear and anxiety have become daily battles – we no longer feel safe in a world where something so cruel could happen to someone we love. The grief is overwhelming, affecting our ability to work, to sleep, and to find joy in even the simplest moments.
[41] He added that as a result of the offence it is difficult for him to trust people and he fears for the safety of his children, parents, and other close relatives.
[42] E.R., in her victim impact statement said that having seen what happened she herself has lost trust in those around her, “Your family trusted you. Your daughter trusted you and you took that away from her. Your daughter had her entire life ahead of her. The only question I have for you is why.” She has lost trust, fears people walking behind her, and that they may have a knife. She continues to experience the trauma having to pass by the location where it occurred daily on her way to and from work.
Position of the Parties
[43] The Crown submits that Mr. Sig-od should have his parole ineligibility set at the maximum time period of 25 years, on the basis that the murder of Angelica was a near first degree murder due to the planning evident in the circumstances. In addition, as an aggravating factor a parent killing his daughter it was a breach of trust.
[44] Defence counsel submits that the period of parole ineligibility should be set at 12 years as appropriate in the circumstances and all of the cases relied on by the Crown are fact specific and distinguishable.
[45] The Crown relied on a series of cases in which the range of parole ineligibility imposed was from 15-22 years.
[46] In R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 Wagner J. (as he then was) at para. 57-58 described a significance of sentencing ranges as follows:
Where sentencing ranges are concerned, although they are used mainly to ensure the parity of sentences, they reflect all the principles and objectives of sentencing. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered “averages”, let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must exercise their discretion in each case.
[47] Sentencing is a fact sensitive and inherently individualized process. In R. v. Teske (2005), 202 OAC 239 (OCA) Doherty J.A. noted that in the setting of an appropriate range for a type of offence the appellate court is not imposing a ceiling. A fit sentence may fall outside of a particular range depending on the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of the case. Ranges provide helpful guidance in the exercise of judicial discretion.
[48] In R. v. McKnight (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 26 , a homicide committed within the domestic context Laskin J.A. stated at para. 48: “ No two cases are the same but similar cases from this province of brutal second-degree murders of an unarmed wife or girlfriend suggest a range of 12 to 15 years".
[49] However, in R. v. Baig, 2019 ONSC 2713 it was noted at para. 40:
Since then, the upper end of that range has been expanded to 17 years: R. v. W(A.N.) (1999), 47 O.R. (3d) 66 (OCA), leave to appeal refused [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 419 (SCC), at paras. 76-78, R. v. Czibulka , 2011 ONCA 82 , 267 C.C.C. (3d) 276, (OCA) at paras. 66-69 , R. v. French , 2017 ONCA 460 , ONCA at para. 31 .
[50] It was noted in the cases cited in Baig that the range up to 17 years was allowed in circumstances where there were no factors of mitigation or remorse.
[51] In R. v. Baig the offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder involving the brutal stabbing death of his domestic partner who was physically vulnerable and in her nineth month of pregnancy. In that instance the court-imposed parole ineligibility at 17-years, the high end of the range identified by the noted appellate courts, due to the court finding there was exceedingly high moral blameworthiness of the offender, the gravity of the offence and very significant aggravating factors. It was also noted, but for the fact that the offender pleaded guilty, a more substantial period of parole ineligibility would have been warranted. The Court of Appeal, 2022 ONCA 692 affirmed that the sentence imposed as entirely fit.
[52] R. v. Berry , 2019 BCSC 2362, 2019 B.C.S.C. 2362 another case with respect to parole ineligibility referred to the court, involved the offender found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder involving the deaths of his two daughters ages 6 and 4. One child was murdered by being struck in the head with a child’s baseball bat and stabbed 26 times. The other child was stabbed 32 times. The children were murdered while they slept in their beds in separate bedrooms. The offender denied responsibility and claimed that he had been attacked by a dark-skinned man who killed his children over his gambling debt. The evidence of the offender was rejected by the jury. The judge noted that the evidence supported that part of the motivation of the offender to kill his children stemmed from his animosity towards his former spouse to keep them from her. He committed the heinous crimes of killing his young daughters in a cruel and vicious manner. To reflect his high degree of moral culpability and to emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence, parole ineligibility was set at 22 years each count. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, 2025 BCCA 14 held that although the period of parole ineligibility was at the high end of the range it was not demonstrably unfit.
[53] In R. v. Boudreau , 2009 NSSC 30 the offender pled guilty to the second-degree murder of her 12-year-old daughter by strangulation. In that instance, the Crown and Counsel made a joint submission that parole ineligibility be set at 20 years.
[54] The court observed that the circumstances surrounding the offence included elements of planning and preparation that brought it close to if not within the range of first-degree murder. The offender had considered the option of killing her daughter for several days motivated by the belief that she was a possible impediment to a relationship of the offender and in the belief her daughter had been disrespectful to her in conversations with others in the community that made her look bad.
[55] The killing of her 12-year-old child involved breach of trust for which the paramount sentencing objectives in imposing the period of parole ineligibility were denunciation, retribution, deterrence, promotion of a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of harm. In mitigation the offender was a first offender, she had waived preliminary inquiry and pleaded guilty.
[56] Considering the sentencing objectives, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, the character and high moral blameworthiness of the offender, the court concluded that a very substantial increase in the period of parole ineligibility was required. The court accepted the joint submission of 20 years for parole ineligibility.
[57] In R. v. Hindessa , [2009] O.J. No. 6412 ; aff’d 2011 ONCA 477 : the 33 year old offender charged with the first degree murder of his 20 year old girlfriend, was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. He had stabbed her 9 times in the chest and once in the back as she lay in her bed. He then inflicted savage gratuitous violence on her body, slicing her throat and slashing her face. The court concluded that the killing was as close to first degree murder as it could possibly be without actually being first degree murder. When the victim sought to end their relationship, which had been physically and emotionally abusive he retrieved a large butcher knife from the kitchen and savagely attacked her as she lay in bed in her bedroom.
[58] He gave multiple versions of what happened, including having no memory of it, that she wanted to kill him and made racial slurs, mental illness and he was attacking the devil, intoxication and he was incapable of forming specific intent.
[59] The Crown sought parole ineligibility in the range of 18 to 25 years. The defence submitted the applicable range of 12-15 years as cited in McKnight .
[60] While there were mitigating factors considered, the accused's personal history in Ethiopia, his mental health issues and the presence of some community support, there were many aggravating features present including the savage and brutal nature of the offence that involved a vulnerable victim, the accused's criminal history of violence and his complete disregard for court orders intended to modify and restrain his behaviour. There was no remorse.
[61] The court determined that the need for denunciation and general deterrence in the circumstances, and the many aggravating factors, required a period of parole ineligibility well in excess of the 12-15 year range cited in McKnight. However, the principle of parity made a period of more than 20 inappropriate. The court imposed a period of 18 years, which was affirmed on appeal.
Analysis and Sentencing
[62] When Mr. Sig-od attacked his daughter initially from behind as she sat in front of him in the car she was in a vulnerable, defenseless, and confined position. It was a vicious and brutal attack. While there were initially multiple stab wounds to her back as she sat in the passenger seat given the vast quantity of blood where she sat, the attack did not end there. Rather, he got out of the back seat and witnesses saw him open the front door and drag his daughter from the front passenger seat. He continued to stab her repeatedly, even as she lay on the ground with a large hunting type knife as described by a witness familiar with knives. One witness described the motion as “stabbing, stabbing, stabbing” as she lay on the ground. His blows were directed to her chest, neck and back, administered to take her life. He cut her down in the spring of her life.
[63] She had been physically vulnerable and defenseless.
[64] Section 718.2(a)(ii) and (iii) emphasizes the aggravating factors to take into account in circumstances involving familial victims. He abused a member of his family by killing her and he abused a position of trust as a father to daughter.
[65] The attack was brutal, committed in full public view. He left her and her mother, Elvie lying in pools of blood on the sidewalk and roadway. He threw away the weapon he used into a nearby ravine and river.
[66] He has not expressed any remorse, rather he sees himself as a victim. The offender testified in reference to stabbing Elvie and Angelica, “look what you made me do”.
[67] While the jury was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was planning and deliberation supporting a verdict of first degree murder in the death of Angelica there was some evidence of planning in that he carried in his backpack two knives, a kitchen type knife with a 5” blade later found in his backpack with blood and hair of Elvie and the hunting type knife used in the savage attack on both Elvie and Angelica. His claim that the hunting type knife was with him for protection against an adversary at the gym he frequented was rejected by the jury but accepted by them that he carried such weapons as some evidence of premeditation in reference to his killing Elvie.
[68] The relationship between father and daughter was at best strained. At one point Angelica wrote a message to her father that he was emotionally abusing her, she contemplated suicide, and he should leave her and her mother alone. There was conflict over a question of providing some support to his mother in the Philippines. Elvie and Angelica indicated that they did not wish to do so. He admitted he had earlier expressed anger and told them that they would feel his “wrath” if anything should happen to his mother.
[69] He testified that he was enraged when his daughter told him that she did not consider his mother her family and only considered Elvie’s as her family.
[70] There has been a significant impact on family and wider community as reflected in the victim witness statements referenced earlier.
[71] In terms of the principles and objectives of sentencing the need for denunciation and general deterrence are particularly important in setting a parole ineligibility for an offender who murders a family member. A message must be sent that murder of vulnerable defenseless family members will result in a life sentence with elevated periods of parole ineligibility.
[72] The seriousness of the offence and the high degree of moral blameworthiness of Godfrey Sig-od, the significant aggravating factors, and the minimal mitigation considerations make this a case in which parole ineligibility beyond the high end of the range is warranted.
[73] While the Crown and majority of the jurors called for a parole ineligibility set at the maximum 25 years, reflects their view that the killing of his own daughter deserves the maximum period of parole ineligibility, it is too high considering the time periods imposed in other cases. Considering the principle of parity, it would seem to me inappropriate to impose the maximum period or indeed a greater period of parole ineligibility imposed in the cases relied on by the Crown, none of which imposed the maximum time period.
[74] The brutal slaying of Angelica was most grave, particularly as it was committed in the circumstances of the first-degree murder of her mother Elvie. His moral blameworthiness is exceedingly high. There are significant aggravating factors and little mitigation other than him not having a criminal record. His admission to killing his ex-wife and daughter was made in face of overwhelming evidence. Considering the applicable sentencing principles, deterrence and denunciation, and significant aggravating factors the period of parole ineligibility shall be set at 18 years.
Disposition
[75] On the verdict of first-degree murder in the killing of Elvie Sig-od I sentence you to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years.
[76] On the verdict of second-degree murder in the killing of Angelica Sig-od I sentence you to imprisonment for life with parole ineligibility for 18 years.
[77] With respect to the sentences ordered I direct that you provide bodily fluid samples for DNA analysis.
[78] I order that you be prohibited from having in your possession any weapon as described under s. 109 for life.
[79] Pursuant to s. 743.2(1) of the Criminal Code I order that you are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with the following people during the custodial period of your sentence: Elboy Pio, Aurora Gines, Soula Bedoussis, Beatriz Cabreros. Jose Degouveia, Royi Flescher, Rommel Furio, Nima Hahighian Roodsari, Zackary Mandel, Sarah Mandlsohn, Esther Rana, Tariq Sheikh.
A.J. O’Marra J.
Released: March 31 , 2025