In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (₱300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.49 For this crime, pregnancy or the presence of the woman's child are aggravating circumstances which increase the imposable penalty, thus, they must be alleged and proven with competent evidence for the penalty to be properly imposed.50 It is true that the fact of AAA's incomplete abortion or miscarriage does not establish any of the crime's elements, as indeed the information itself did not allege the same. However, from the fact of miscarriage one may logically derive the fact of AAA's pregnancy, which is an aggravating circumstance for the crime and which is alleged as such in the information. The pregnancy is proven by AAA's unrebutted testimony as well as by the medical certificate that she presented in the course of such testimony to show that she was indeed hospitalized and suffered an "incomplete abortion secondary to the mauling." Although petitioner Dinamling, up to this stage of the case, denies having caused the incomplete abortion or miscarriage, he does not deny the fact of pregnancy itself. He did not present contradictory evidence during trial to controvert the prosecution's assertions and proof of pregnancy. The pregnancy was never put in issue during trial and on appeal. Neither is the same in question in this petition. Therefore, it may be safely concluded that the fact of AAA's pregnancy has been established and it may be taken account of and considered as a circumstance that aggravates Dinamling's criminal liability. Therefore, given such finding, this Court will now accordingly modify the penalties imposed by the trial court and appellate court.51 As for Criminal Case No. 1701, no mitigating and only one (1) aggravating circumstance attends the crime. Although it was stated during trial that the offense was committed in the presence of AAA's children, such fact was not alleged in the information and therefore will not be taken into consideration.52 Nighttime, though alleged, is not considered aggravating because it neither facilitated the commission of the offense nor was it shown to have been purposely sought by the offender.53 The fact of AAA's pregnancy during the crime's commission, however, has been alleged and established. This single circumstance aggravates the accused's liability and automatically raises his penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, per Section 6 of RA 9262 and also Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, petitioner Dinamling should be sentenced to a maximum penalty that is derived from prision mayor in its maximum period, which is imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,54 the minimum penalty should come from the penalty one degree lower than prision mayor which is prision correccional, whose range is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.55 Therefore, this Court modifies the trial court's Order dated September 17, 2009,56 which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and imposes on petitioner Dinamling an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eleven (11) years of prision mayor as maximum. The trial court's order for petitioner to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is upheld. 1âwphi1 As for Criminal Case No. 1702, there is likewise no mitigating and only one (1) aggravating circumstance. Again, the single circumstance of pregnancy aggravates the accused's liability and automatically raises his penalty to the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, per Section 6 of RA No. 9262 and Article 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the