It is immaterial whether or not the accused himself employed the coercion or influence to subdue the will of the child for the latter to submit to his sexual advances for him to be convicted under paragraph (b). Sec. 5 of RA 7610 even provides that the offense can be committed by "any adult, syndicate or group," without qualification.[47] The clear language of the special law, therefore, does not preclude the prosecution of lascivious conduct performed by the same person who subdued the child through coercion or influence. This is, in fact, the more common scenario of abuse that reaches this Court and it would be an embarrassment for us to rule that such instances are outside the ambit Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. It is as my esteemed colleagues Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe reminded the Court. Ratio legis est anima. The reason of the law is the soul of the law. In this case, the law would have miserably failed in fulfilling its lofty purpose[48] of providing special protection to children from all forms of abuse if the Court were to interpret its penal provisions so as to require the additional element of a prior or contemporaneous abuse that is different from what is complained of, and if the Court were to require that a third person act in concert with the accused. The RTC and CA did not err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt Well-settled is the rule that, absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[49] This is so because the observance of the deportment and demeanor of witnesses are within the exclusive domain of the trial courts. Thus, considering their unique vantage point, trial courts are in the best position to assess and evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of witnesses and their testimonies.[50] In the case at bar, the RTC held that the prosecution duly established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through AAA's straightforward testimony. The trial court observed that when AAA testified, she was able to steadily recount Quimvel's immodest acts, as follows: Q A Q A Q A Q Okay. On the same date, where was your mother, if you know? During that time, my mother was in Batangas, she being a household helper. Alright. How about your father, where was he on July 18, 2007, at more or less 8:00 o'clock in the evening? He was on duty at Palapas, Ligao City. Okay. What was your father's job? He was on duty, since he was a Barangay Tanod. Okay. Now, on that date and time, where were you, if you recall?