First, perception doesn't "percept" things. The verb form is "perceive."
It is indeed true that our senses--our capacities for perception--constitute a filter between our minds and reality. Our minds deal indirectly, with a model of reality as we perceive it, and that is a potential source of error.
Practically, however, there's a limit to the amount of doubt that does any good. Our minds work on models of reality--but that's how our minds work, and attempting to make them work otherwise is, itself, a rejection of reality. And thanks to the evolutionary benefits of having senses that give us less inaccurate perceptions, our senses are much better than they might be. Of course, they could be even better: If mice were a more important portion of our diet, as is the case with hawks, we might have eyes that detect the ultraviolet markings of mouse trails--as is the case with hawks. For our uses, however, they're pretty good.
For what it's worth, here are some notable observations on this topic.
The world we perceive as individuals is essentially of our own making, governed by our own experience. Similarly, the world we perceive as a species is governed by the nature of the sensory channels we possess. Any dog owner knows that there is a world of olfactory experience to which the canine but not the human is privy. Butterflies are able to see ultraviolet light; we are not. The world inside our heads—whether we are a Homo sapiens, a dog, or a butterfly—is formed, therefore, by the qualitative nature of the information flow from the outside world to the inside world, and the inside world’s ability to process the information. There is a difference between the real world, “out there,” and the one perceived in the mind, “in here.”
-- Richard Leakey, "The Origin of Humankind"
I had noticed for a long time that in practice it is sometimes necessary to follow opinions which we know to be very uncertain, just as though they were indubitable, as I stated before; but inasmuch as I desired to devote myself wholly to the search for truth, I thought that I should take a course precisely contrary, and reject as absolutely false anything of which I could have the least doubt, in order to see whether anything would be left after this procedure which could be called wholly certain. Thus, as our senses deceive us at times, I was ready to suppose that nothing was at all the way our senses represented them to be. As there are men who make mistakes in reasoning even on the simplest topics in geometry, I judged that I was as liable to error as any other, and rejected as false all the reasoning which I had previously accepted as valid demonstration. Finally, as the same percepts which we have when awake may come to us when asleep without their being true, I decided to suppose that nothing that had ever entered my mind was more real than the illusion of my dreams. But I soon noticed that while I then wished to think everything false, it was necessarily true that I who thought so was something. Since this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so firm and assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could safely accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.
-- René Descartes, "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Field of Science"; translated by Laurence J. Lafleur
"Why do you doubt your senses?"
"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato."
-- Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"