Relatives reported earlier concerns about Daniel Antonio Perez, but authorities say no prior dispute with the victims has emerged.
SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The sheriff investigating the fatal shooting of two brothers says the accused gunman’s relatives described previous mental health concerns, but authorities have not released a diagnosis, established a motive or found evidence of a prior conflict between the two households.
Those uncertainties are now central to the case against Daniel Antonio Perez, 40, who faces two counts of capital murder in the Aug. 4 deaths of Maliki Perales, 11, and Drayvn Quiroz, 20. Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar said family members of Perez described periods of depression and episodes in which he appeared to see things that were not there. Salazar also said investigators were unaware of any earlier law enforcement report about those concerns. At the same time, the sheriff has emphasized that the reported crisis does not by itself explain the shooting or settle questions about Perez’s criminal responsibility.
The distinction matters because mental health descriptions can easily become shorthand for motive when the evidence does not support that conclusion. No clinical finding reviewed for this article establishes why Perez allegedly acted as authorities say he did. Investigators have not announced that a particular diagnosis caused the shooting. They also have not reported that Perez’s relatives anticipated violence against the family across the street. What authorities have said is narrower: relatives described earlier troubling behavior after the arrest, and investigators believe Perez may have been experiencing a crisis around the time of an attack that left two brothers dead.
The criminal allegations are based on a more concrete sequence of events. At about 7:30 p.m., Maliki and Quiroz were at their family’s home in the 9800 block of Acadian Drive, where a vehicle was being moved in the driveway. Salazar said Perez came from his home across the street and opened fire without a known provocation. Both brothers were critically wounded. Maliki died later that evening, and Quiroz died the following morning. The younger boy’s death was ruled a homicide, according to information attributed to the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office.
Authorities allege Perez also turned his gun toward two other members of the same family. Salazar said a 14-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl were near the front entrance when shots were fired in their direction. Neither teenager was hit. Court records reported by KSAT list two capital murder counts, one count of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The filing of those charges does not establish guilt, and Perez is entitled to challenge the allegations and the evidence supporting them in court.
The sheriff’s description of Perez as a “ticking time bomb” drew attention because it captured the investigators’ view that the victims had little warning. But the phrase came from Salazar’s assessment after the shooting, not from evidence that the Perales family had been warned about a specific threat in advance. Salazar said his understanding was that the brothers did not know an attack was coming. Authorities have not described restraining orders, police calls between the two households or a documented dispute that would have alerted the victims to a danger from across the street.
Andrew Perales, the victims’ father, offered a similar account of the relationship between the families. He told News 4 San Antonio that his family did not have enemies and was accustomed to helping others. He described an ordinary evening in which the family wanted a vehicle adjusted so it would not obstruct the sidewalk. Perales said he was ordering food when the shooting started. His account does not establish Perez’s motive, but it supports the broader point investigators have made publicly: nothing yet disclosed shows that the brothers went outside expecting a confrontation with their neighbor.
What Perez allegedly did after the shooting has shaped Salazar’s statements about criminal responsibility. Authorities said Perez fled on foot, called 911 to report that he had shot his neighbors, discarded a handgun in a drainage culvert and hid in a backyard about a quarter-mile from the scene. Deputies used cellphone data to find him after he did not provide his location to dispatchers, the sheriff said. Officers then confronted him and ordered him to surrender. Salazar said the arrest occurred about 10 minutes after the shooting.
Investigators interpret those actions as evidence that Perez could make purposeful decisions after the gunfire. Salazar said Perez had “the presence of mind” to conceal both a weapon and himself despite what the sheriff described as an apparent mental health crisis. That is an investigative interpretation, not a medical or judicial finding. Questions about whether a defendant had a mental illness, understood his conduct or meets any legal standard concerning competency or responsibility require specific evaluations and court procedures. No such final determination has been publicly reported in the material reviewed for this article.
Doorbell-camera footage has added another layer. KSAT reported that video showed Perez approaching a nearby home and making statements suggesting he believed he was in danger. Salazar said investigators did not find evidence supporting his apparent claim of self-defense. That disagreement between what Perez appeared to say and what investigators believe the evidence shows could become significant if the case advances. A defendant’s perception of danger and whether that perception was reasonable under the law are separate questions from whether relatives previously observed mental health symptoms.
Salazar has also said investigators did not identify a prior criminal record for Perez. That fact narrows what law enforcement can point to as a documented warning but does not answer what happened inside the household before the shooting. Relatives’ reports about depression or seeing things that were not present came to investigators after the deaths, according to the sheriff’s account. Public reporting does not establish that those relatives had made previous threats reports, sought an emergency mental health intervention or had reason to predict an attack against the Perales family specifically. Those distinctions are important when assessing what was known before Aug. 4 rather than in hindsight.
The two victims’ lives were otherwise moving in different directions because of their ages. Maliki was 11 and preparing for middle school, according to family reporting. Quiroz, 20, worked alongside his father and had been dealing with significant health problems before his death. Andrew Perales recalled family routines built around work, barbecuing and movie nights. Salazar said the household was known for feeding people in the neighborhood. The family’s public statements have focused on those memories rather than on speculation about the accused neighbor’s state of mind.
The case therefore presents several questions that remain separate even though they arose from the same event. Detectives are investigating what Perez allegedly did and why. Medical questions concern whether he had a diagnosable condition and what effect, if any, it had at the time. Prosecutors must decide what charges can be proved with admissible evidence. Defense counsel may raise issues that have not yet been made public. And the court will determine legal questions that cannot be resolved by a sheriff’s characterization, a relative’s description or a short video clip viewed outside the full evidentiary record.
For now, the clearest facts concern the deaths and the pending prosecution. Perez remained jailed on bonds reported at $2.3 million. Local court reporting listed Nov. 3, 2026, for his next scheduled appearance, described as a pre-indictment proceeding. Authorities have not publicly identified a verified motive, and reports reviewed for this article do not show a final decision by prosecutors on whether to seek the death penalty. The two capital murder counts and related assault allegations will move forward through the Bexar County court system while investigators continue examining the evidence behind a shooting that authorities say began without warning.
Author note: Last updated September 20, 2026.