Whether the refusal to proceed for theft and fraud should be annulled and the case sent back for further investigation.
The appeal was unfounded because the facts did not allow a criminal conviction to be excluded only by civil-law considerations; in light of the will, the respondent could believe she was entitled to dispose of the assets as sole heir, so the required criminal intent was lacking.
A refusal to proceed on the merits is justified only when conviction is excluded with certainty. The will indicated that the appellant had been invited to renounce any succession claim and that the respondent was instituted sole heir. In that context, the conduct complained of was civil in nature and did not establish intent for theft or fraud.