Two suspects surrender in Santa Fe shooting; why that home was hit remains unclear

The search for two adults accused in a Santa Fe drive-by shooting is over. Why gunfire struck that particular occupied home remains unresolved. Samuel Vicente Perea, 20, of Pecos, and Diego Elijah Bencomo, 19, of Santa Fe, surrendered to police on October 25, 2026, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, citing an evening release from Interim Police Chief Ben Valdez. ¹

Their surrender brings both adults into custody ten days after the shooting in the city's Las Acequias neighborhood. KKOB reported October 26 that both were booked into the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center. That establishes a reported booking, not whether either man remains detained or what conditions a court may have imposed for release. ²

Gunfire hit a home with people inside and a parked vehicle on October 15. No one was struck, and no injuries were reported. Police counted at least 11 bullet casings at the scene—a minimum count of recovered evidence, not an independently established number of shots or proof of who fired them. The lack of injuries does not diminish the danger to those inside. ^{2 3}

The surrender supersedes the earlier account of the adults' whereabouts. In its October 22 report, the New Mexican said neither man was in custody as of that Thursday. KOB's October 23 report likewise described police as searching for them. Those reports describe an earlier stage of the investigation, not their status after October 25. ^{3 5 1}

A central part of the allegations against the adults comes from the 15-year-old boy who was arrested the day after the shooting. According to the New Mexican's October 22 account of police affidavits, the boy told investigators he drove a pickup while Perea and Bencomo fired at a home. His statement is an accusation recorded in the investigation; it has not been established as fact in court. ³

Investigators connected the boy to the shooting by following the pickup across surveillance-camera footage from the neighborhood. After his October 16 arrest, he was booked into the San Juan County Juvenile Detention Center, the newspaper reported. His arrest and the adults' later surrender are separate custody events in the same case. No juvenile adjudication or current custody order has been established in the available records. ³

The boy also gave police an account that leaves an important gap. He said the former boyfriend of a girl he was dating had threatened him, and he described himself as the shooting's target. Officers noted that the former boyfriend he identified appeared to live at a different home from the one the suspects were accused of firing at. ³

Those statements do not establish a motive. Nor do they explain why this home was struck. Treating the reported threats as a complete explanation would erase the inconsistency police themselves recorded—and turn one suspect's account into a settled reconstruction.

Each adult reportedly faces four counts: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, shooting at an occupied building, tampering with evidence, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The New Mexican listed those charges in both its October 22 account and its October 25 surrender report. They remain allegations, not findings of guilt. ^{3 1}

The precise wording of the shooting count is less clear than that list suggests. The New Mexican used “occupied building.” KOB's October 23 report used “occupied dwelling.” KKOB's October 26 report instead said “unoccupied dwelling,” while also reporting that gunfire struck an occupied home. Without the filed complaints, that difference cannot be resolved. KKOB's charge wording should not be read as evidence that the house was empty. ^{1 5 2}

The available account rests on news reports describing police announcements and charging documents. The original surrender release, the filed complaints and case-specific custody orders were not available for independent inspection. That limits what can responsibly be said about the exact charges and the next court steps; it does not justify filling those gaps with assumptions.

The consequential questions now concern what a court orders and what the evidence can prove. No case-specific hearing date, bond ruling, release decision or plea has been verified. The surrender answers where the search for the two adults ended. It does not establish their responsibility for the shooting, settle the disputed charge language or explain why people inside that home came under fire.