Short answer. Yes. The anti-VAWC law makes all records of violence against women and their children confidential, expressly including those held at the barangay. Public officers, employees, and clinics or hospitals must respect the victim's privacy, and publishing a victim's identifying details without consent is punishable.
What the law says
All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim.
RA 9262, Section 44 — Confidentiality. Read the full provision →
The records are confidential, barangay included
The law states it plainly: "All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential." The phrase including those in the barangay is there for a reason — many cases begin at the barangay, with a blotter entry or a Barangay Protection Order, and those first records are exactly where a victim's details are most exposed. The provision closes that gap by making confidentiality reach the barangay level, not only the courts. A record does not lose its protection simply because it sits in a barangay hall rather than a courtroom.
Who is bound to keep it private
The duty is broad. The same sentence requires that "all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim." That sweeps in barangay officials, court personnel, police, and social workers, and it deliberately reaches medical providers — both public and private — because a hospital or clinic often holds the most sensitive evidence of abuse. Everyone who handles the case in an official capacity is under the same obligation. Confidentiality is not a favour the victim asks for; it is a duty the law imposes on the people around the case.
Publishing a victim's identity is separately punished
The Act singles out exposure of the victim. Anyone who publishes, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member, without consent, is liable to the contempt power of the court. On top of that, the provision fixes a penalty of one year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos. So this is not merely an ethical guideline — naming a victim in a post, a news item, or a group chat can carry real criminal and contempt consequences.
What confidentiality does and does not mean
Confidentiality protects the victim's identity and privacy; it does not stop the case from moving forward, and it does not silence the victim herself, who may consent to disclosure. The people it restrains are those handling the case and anyone who would publish the victim's details. It matters because exposure is dangerous — being identified can invite retaliation from the abuser, shame the victim into withdrawing, or put a family at risk. If you believe your information has been leaked, that breach is itself something the law treats as a wrong. This is general information, not advice on a specific case.